[Bug c++/67244] internal compiler error: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67244 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/58907] [c++11] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:NNNN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58907 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 58907, which changed state. Bug 58907 Summary: [c++11] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58907 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/62272] Gimplify throws error on method call from inside nested lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62272 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppluzhnikov at google dot com ---

[Bug c++/62272] Gimplify throws error on method call from inside nested lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62272 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shadewind at gmail dot com --- Com

[Bug c++/67244] New: internal compiler error: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67244 Bug ID: 67244 Summary: internal compiler error: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:1801 Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major

[Bug tree-optimization/16107] missed optimization with some math function builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16107 --- Comment #7 from naveenh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: naveenh Date: Mon Aug 17 04:47:45 2015 New Revision: 226934 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226934&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-08-17 Richard Biener Naveen H.S

[Bug tree-optimization/67153] [5/6 Regression] integer optimizations 53% slower than std::bitset<>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/67238] New: [C++11][C++14]cc1plus crash for nested decltype expression in parameter pack in trailing return type when '-g' enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67238 Bug ID: 67238 Summary: [C++11][C++14]cc1plus crash for nested decltype expression in parameter pack in trailing return type when '-g' enabled Product: gcc Version

[Bug c++/54430] [C++11] For-Loop: Scope of iterating variable begins too early

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54430 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bloerwald at googlemail dot com --- Co

[Bug c++/65201] range-for range-init containing variable named like for-range-declaration iterates over uninitialized for-range-declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65201 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/67153] [5/6 Regression] integer optimizations 53% slower than std::bitset<>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153 --- Comment #14 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- A notable difference between g++-4.9 output and g++-5 output is that, while both hoist the "(word == seven)" comparison out of the innermost loop, gcc-4.9 splits inner loop into two versions, one tha

[Bug c/67243] Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243 --- Comment #2 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- Moreover, since VLAs are not an extension in C99, the text of Wvla is wrong always for -std=c99. void square(int num) { int array[num]; } With -std=c99 -Wpedantic there is no warning. With -std=c99

[Bug c/67243] Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/67243] New: Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67243 Bug ID: 67243 Summary: Wrong Message of -Wvla for Standard ISO C90 However Emitted with -std=c11 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/65794] Building crossback fails: No rule to make target `auto-build.h', needed by `build/genmddeps.o'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65794 --- Comment #2 from Marcin Cieślak --- Created attachment 36191 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36191&action=edit Patch to Makefile to proceed with the build The attached patch allowed me to continue the build. Probably this

[Bug tree-optimization/67153] [5/6 Regression] integer optimizations 53% slower than std::bitset<>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67153 --- Comment #13 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- This is essentially the entire difference between the versions of puzzlegen-int.cc without, and with, the added "++count;" line referenced above (modulo register assignments and branch labels) that

[Bug other/65794] Building crossback fails: No rule to make target `auto-build.h', needed by `build/genmddeps.o'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65794 Marcin Cieślak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||saper at marcincieslak dot com --- Comm

[Bug fortran/51175] Memory Leak with Transfer intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51175 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/67242] Missing optimization with float

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67242 --- Comment #2 from Frank --- x86-64: .file "bug.c" .section.text.unlikely,"x" .LCOLDB0: .text .LHOTB0: .p2align 4,,15 .globl bug .defbug;.scl2; .type 32; .endef

[Bug target/66232] -fPIC -fno-plt -mx32 fails to generate indirect branch via GOT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66232 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/67242] Missing optimization with float

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67242 --- Comment #1 from Frank --- works ok with local variables.

[Bug c/67242] New: Missing optimization with float

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67242 Bug ID: 67242 Summary: Missing optimization with float Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Ass

[Bug fortran/55548] SYSTEM_CLOCK with integer(8) provides nanosecond resolution, but only microsecond precision (without -lrt)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55548 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/54656] ICE with software REAL(16) for NORM2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54656 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/54656] ICE with software REAL(16) for NORM2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54656 --- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Author: fxcoudert Date: Sun Aug 16 19:47:02 2015 New Revision: 226929 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226929&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR fortran/54656 * trans-intrinsic.c (gfc_b

[Bug fortran/54656] ICE with software REAL(16) for NORM2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54656 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-09-21 00:00:00 |2015-8-16 CC|

[Bug c++/63887] abi_tag confuses demangler on destructor names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63887 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/67241] New: [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67241 Bug ID: 67241 Summary: [6 Regression] FAIL: 23_containers/unordered_set/insert/hash_policy.cc execution test Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug c++/67240] New: [concepts] Implicit conversion constraints are not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67240 Bug ID: 67240 Summary: [concepts] Implicit conversion constraints are not respected Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug fortran/52846] [F2008] Support submodules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52846 --- Comment #26 from Joost VandeVondele --- One more datapoint on the .smod / .mod issue. I ran into the first package that fails to build with 6.0 because of this. libxc (version 2.2.2, Tobias Burnus actually being one of the authors), relies

[Bug target/66648] [4.9/5/6 regression] incorrect memcpy expansion with unrolled_loop strategy at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66648 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-*-linux |x86 Status|NEW

[Bug target/66648] [4.9/5/6 regression] incorrect memcpy expansion with unrolled_loop strategy at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66648 --- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Sun Aug 16 17:52:51 2015 New Revision: 226926 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226926&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport from mainline: 2015-07-25 Uros Bizjak

[Bug target/66648] [4.9/5/6 regression] incorrect memcpy expansion with unrolled_loop strategy at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66648 --- Comment #6 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Sun Aug 16 17:50:20 2015 New Revision: 226925 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=226925&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport from mainline: 2015-07-25 Uros Bizjak

[Bug libfortran/57496] I/O: WRITE(*,*) HUGE(0._10) gives SIGFPE with -ffpe-trap=overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57496 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |libfortran --- Comment #7 from

[Bug fortran/57496] I/O: WRITE(*,*) HUGE(0._10) gives SIGFPE with -ffpe-trap=overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57496 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org,