[Bug middle-end/64327] ../../gcc/gcc/rtlanal.c:4881:48: runtime error: shift exponent 4294967295 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64327 --- Comment #7 from Vittorio Zecca --- On 6.1.0 I applied the same patch I suggested on comment 6, this time at line 5187, and the runtime error disappeared.

[Bug target/69645] powerpc -ffixed- ignored when saving and restoring regs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69645 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/70879] Missed jump threading opportunity with multiple != conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70879 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/63321] [SH] Unused T bit result of shll / shlr insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63321 --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #1) > > void test2_2 (unsigned int x, unsigned int* y) > { > unsigned int xx = x >> 1; > unsigned int p = x & 1; > if (p != 0) > foo (xx); > } > And of course also

[Bug c++/70885] New: [SH] Use MSB pointer-tagging for pointer-to-member representation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70885 Bug ID: 70885 Summary: [SH] Use MSB pointer-tagging for pointer-to-member representation Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/67496] trans-array.c sanitizer runtime error: load of value 124, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496 --- Comment #5 from Vittorio Zecca --- Yes, I did test your patch, but nothing changed. I understand you tried to generate a sanitized version of f951 but the process failed. I did the following (approximately): CFLAGS="-fsanitize=undefined -Og

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug target/69645] powerpc -ffixed- ignored when saving and restoring regs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69645 --- Comment #2 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Sat Apr 30 00:34:16 2016 New Revision: 235670 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235670&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [RS6000] PR69645, -ffixed-reg ignored Treat -ffixed-reg as we do for global

[Bug c++/66644] Rejects C++11 in-class anonymous union members initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66644 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/66644] Rejects C++11 in-class anonymous union members initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66644 --- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Sat Apr 30 00:00:51 2016 New Revision: 235662 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235662&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2016-04-29 Paolo Carlini PR c++/66644 *

[Bug c/70883] inconsistent error message for calls to __builtin_add_overflow with too few arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70883 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/49244] __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244 --- Comment #14 from dhowells at redhat dot com --- Okay, I built and booted an x86_64 kernel that had the XXX_bit() and test_and_XXX_bit() ops altered to use __atomic_fetch_YYY() funcs. The core kernel ended up ~8K larger in the .text segment.

[Bug target/49244] __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244 --- Comment #13 from dhowells at redhat dot com --- Very nice:-) There are a couple of under optimisations yet. Firstly: #define BITS_PER_LONG (sizeof(long) * 8) #define _BITOPS_LONG_SHIFT 6 static __always_inline bool test_and_change

[Bug fortran/67496] trans-array.c sanitizer runtime error: load of value 124, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Sorry, I get the same warning on 6.1.0: Did you test the patch in comment 1? > If you had a sanitized version of f951 maybe you could see it by yourself. The last time I tried, it just failed. Cou

[Bug fortran/49278] ICE (segfault) when combining DATA with default initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49278 --- Comment #11 from Vittorio Zecca --- Same ICE in 6.1.0

[Bug fortran/50410] [4.9/5/6/7 Regression] ICE in record_reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410 --- Comment #22 from Vittorio Zecca --- Same ICE in 6.1.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ubizjak at gmail dot com --- Comment #5 from H

[Bug c++/70847] [6/7 Regression] exponential time in cp_fold for chained virtual function calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70847 Martin Richtarsky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc at martinien dot de --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- -mfpmath=sse is needed.

[Bug tree-optimization/70884] [6/7 regression] 2nd SRA pass confused by load from constant pool

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mile

[Bug target/38825] missed optimization: register renaming in unrolled loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38825 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||alias Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/67498] interface.c sanitizer runtime error: load of value 1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67498 --- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca --- Still in gfortran 6.1.0 ../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/interface.c:2738:33: runtime error: load of value 1818451807, which is not a valid value for type 'expr_t'

[Bug fortran/67497] data.c sanitizer runtime error: null pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67497 --- Comment #4 from Vittorio Zecca --- And in 6.1.0 ../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/data.c:191:32: runtime error: null pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/70884] New: [6 regression] 2nd SRA pass confused by load from constant pool

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70884 Bug ID: 70884 Summary: [6 regression] 2nd SRA pass confused by load from constant pool Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug c/70883] New: inconsistent error message for calls to __builtin_add_overflow with too few arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70883 Bug ID: 70883 Summary: inconsistent error message for calls to __builtin_add_overflow with too few arguments Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug c++/70882] vectorized sincos trashes the stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70882 Lorenzo Pistone changed: What|Removed |Added CC||blaffablaffa at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug c++/70882] New: vectorized sincos trashes the stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70882 Bug ID: 70882 Summary: vectorized sincos trashes the stack Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/67496] trans-array.c sanitizer runtime error: load of value 124, which is not a valid value for type 'bool'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67496 --- Comment #3 from Vittorio Zecca --- Just back from my travels. Sorry, I get the same warning on 6.1.0: /home/vitti/1tb/vitti/gcc-6.1.0-undefined/gcc/f951 -quiet gfbug121.f ../../gcc-6.1.0/gcc/fortran/trans-array.c:2234:27: runtime error: loa

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Schmidt --- Can you give me more information what exactly is causing the stall - which instructions are affected, and what needs to be done to avoid it?

[Bug libfortran/70311] libgfortran build dies on "implicit declaration of function strncasecmp"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70311 --- Comment #2 from Keith Marshall --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1) > Could some mingw32 guru assign this PR to her/himself? Well, I should have thought that the requirement to include to expose a prototype for strncasecmp

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milest

[Bug web/70880] Main page GCC 7.0 links point to GCC 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70880 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/70881] -Wunused-parameter incorrect for macro case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70881 Ian Mallett changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/70881] -Wunused-parameter incorrect for macro case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70881 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug rtl-optimization/70526] [5/6 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On April 29, 2016 5:24:00 PM GMT+02:00, "amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 > >Alexander Monakov changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/70626] bogus results in 'acc parallel loop' reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626 cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug target/49244] __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- The attached patch seems to work (just eyeballed assembly of the following testcase, haven't turned it into a runtime testcase that would verify it works right yet). It should detect both the compile time k

[Bug middle-end/70626] bogus results in 'acc parallel loop' reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626 --- Comment #4 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: cesar Date: Fri Apr 29 17:42:04 2016 New Revision: 235651 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235651&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/c-family/ PR middle-end/70626 * c-co

[Bug c++/70881] New: -Wunused-parameter incorrect for macro case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70881 Bug ID: 70881 Summary: -Wunused-parameter incorrect for macro case Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/70626] bogus results in 'acc parallel loop' reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626 --- Comment #3 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: cesar Date: Fri Apr 29 17:37:55 2016 New Revision: 235650 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235650&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/c-family/ PR middle-end/70626 * c-co

[Bug target/49244] __sync or __atomic builtins will not emit 'lock bts/btr/btc'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49244 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug target/70155] Use SSE for TImode load/store

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70155 --- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Fri Apr 29 17:27:59 2016 New Revision: 235647 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235647&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Update scan-assembler-not in PR target/70155 tests Since PIC leads

[Bug target/69810] PowerPC64: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69810 --- Comment #9 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Fri Apr 29 17:20:36 2016 New Revision: 235646 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235646&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/69810 * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (EXTQI): Don't al

[Bug middle-end/37780] Conditional expression with __builtin_clz() should be optimized out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC

[Bug web/70880] New: Main page GCC 7.0 links point to GCC 6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70880 Bug ID: 70880 Summary: Main page GCC 7.0 links point to GCC 6 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: trivial Priority: P3 Component: web

[Bug middle-end/70879] New: Missed jump threading opportunity with multiple != conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70879 Bug ID: 70879 Summary: Missed jump threading opportunity with multiple != conditions Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/69531] Implement CWG 1307; Differently bounded array parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69531 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/70803] gcc.dg/vect/pr56625.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70803 amker at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug c/70878] New: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7680

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70878 Bug ID: 70878 Summary: ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7680 Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug rtl-optimization/70526] [5/6 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug c++/67737] [C++1z] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67737 Vittorio Zecca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeccav at gmail dot com --- Comment #7

[Bug tree-optimization/70803] gcc.dg/vect/pr56625.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70803 --- Comment #3 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Fri Apr 29 15:13:03 2016 New Revision: 235644 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235644&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog PR tree-optimization/708

[Bug c/70851] internal compiler error: in create_tmp_var, at gimple-expr.c:473

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70851 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/68860] [6/7 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c -flto -O3 -g line 16/7 arg1 == 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860 --- Comment #14 from Bill Seurer --- Dominik Vogt, I've noticed that sort of failure in several of the guality test cases where a test is done at line X but optimization moves the assignment being tested to after line X. Should the tests be adju

[Bug c/70877] New: ICE in in convert_move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70877 Bug ID: 70877 Summary: ICE in in convert_move Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: unas

[Bug c/70876] New: ICE in chkp_find_bounds: Unexpected tree code with_size_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70876 Bug ID: 70876 Summary: ICE in chkp_find_bounds: Unexpected tree code with_size_expr Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug testsuite/70369] [testsuite,ARM,AArch64] AdvSIMD intrinsic tests missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70369 --- Comment #3 from Christophe Lyon --- Created attachment 38378 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38378&action=edit list of tests missing for aarch64 On AArch64, there are many intrinsics defined in arm_neon.h for which there

[Bug bootstrap/70173] make distclean: leaves stage_final and libcc1/compiler-name.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70173 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- This is fixed on trunk now. Does it need backports?

[Bug c/70875] ICE in get_ubsan_type_info_for_type with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70875 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/70874] Segmentation violation in tree-chkp.c chkp_walk_pointer_assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70874 Ilya Enkovich changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/69804] [5/6] ICE with -fsanitize=undefined -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69804 Ilya Enkovich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeccav at gmail dot com --- Comment #3 f

[Bug c/70875] New: ICE in get_ubsan_type_info_for_type with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70875 Bug ID: 70875 Summary: ICE in get_ubsan_type_info_for_type with -fsanitize=undefined Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/70874] New: Segmentation violation in tree-chkp.c chkp_walk_pointer_assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70874 Bug ID: 70874 Summary: Segmentation violation in tree-chkp.c chkp_walk_pointer_assignments Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/70526] [5/6 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #17 from Jan de Mooij --- Thank you for looking into this again. I don't understand comment 16 though: > _BUT_ here we access D.3125 both as Register (the store) > and as its declared type TypedOrValueRegister (the load). So D.3125

[Bug rtl-optimization/70526] [5/6 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- In ToConstantOrRegister: -(insn 66 64 88 7 (set (mem:SI (reg/f:DI 0 ax [orig:90 _12 ] [90]) [2 MEM[(struct Register *)_12]+0 S4 A32]) +(insn:TI 89 64 66 7 (set (reg:DI 1 dx [orig:125 D.3219+8 ] [125]) +

[Bug rtl-optimization/70526] [5/6 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization Summar

[Bug tree-optimization/70526] [5 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- no differences in GIMPLE dumps with -f[no-]strict-aliasing, so this is now a RTL optimization issue. -fno-schedule-insns2 fixes it ...

[Bug c/70859] Bad column number in type-generic function errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70859 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/70803] gcc.dg/vect/pr56625.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70803 --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #1 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Thanks for reporting this, I will check it. Maybe a simple "vect_int_mult" to > skip on some targets. Right, restricting the scan to

[Bug tree-optimization/70526] [5 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- disabling SRA doesn't help anymore.

[Bug c/70852] ice in warn_for_memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70852 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Apr 29 12:39:25 2016 New Revision: 235638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235638&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/70852 * c-common.c (warn_for_memset): Check domain

[Bug c/70852] ice in warn_for_memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70852 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/70342] g++ -fsanitize=undefined never finishes compiling (>24h) in qtxmlpatterns test suite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70342 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed for GCC 7, will backport to GCC 6 after a while.

[Bug sanitizer/70342] g++ -fsanitize=undefined never finishes compiling (>24h) in qtxmlpatterns test suite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70342 --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Apr 29 12:32:45 2016 New Revision: 235637 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235637&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/70342 * fold-const.c (tree_single_nonzero_

[Bug middle-end/70871] questionable optimisation in fold-const.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70871 Jan Smets changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #38376|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/70526] [5 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #12 from Jan de Mooij --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #11) > The patch has not yet been backported to GCC 5. I'm using: g++-6 (Ubuntu 6.0.1-1ubuntu11) 6.0.0 20160414 (experimental) [trunk revision 234994] Shouldn't tha

[Bug tree-optimization/70729] Loop marked with omp simd pragma is not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729 > > --- Comment #14 from Ilya Enkovich --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comme

[Bug tree-optimization/70526] [5 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jan de Mooij from comment #10) > Richards, thank you for fixing that. > > Unfortunately Firefox still crashes and my original test case (see comment 0 > and the attachment) still fails. Do you

[Bug tree-optimization/70526] [5 Regression] GCC 6 miscompiles Firefox JIT compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70526 --- Comment #10 from Jan de Mooij --- Richards, thank you for fixing that. Unfortunately Firefox still crashes and my original test case (see comment 0 and the attachment) still fails. Do you have any idea why?

[Bug tree-optimization/70729] Loop marked with omp simd pragma is not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729 --- Comment #14 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > (In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #12) > > Created attachment 38367 [details] > > modified patch > > The loop->aux flagging looks redundant to me. Wh

[Bug tree-optimization/70729] Loop marked with omp simd pragma is not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70729 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Yuri Rumyantsev from comment #12) > Created attachment 38367 [details] > modified patch The loop->aux flagging looks redundant to me. Why is ->safelen only valid before vectorization? I supp

[Bug middle-end/70871] questionable optimisation in fold-const.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70871 --- Comment #2 from Jan Smets --- Created attachment 38376 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38376&action=edit possible solution I have not extensively tested this, but it seems to work for my testcase.

[Bug fortran/70864] internal compiler error: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1403

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70864 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] [GCC7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 --- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- Created attachment 38375 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38375&action=edit test-case to reproduce Must be compiled with -O2 -mavx2 -m32 options.

[Bug rtl-optimization/70873] New: [GCC7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70873 Bug ID: 70873 Summary: [GCC7 Regressio] 20% performance regression at 482.sphinx3 after r235442 with -O2 -m32 on Haswell. Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/70863] Finalization of array of derived type causes segfault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70863 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/70855] [6/7 Regression] ICE with -fopenmp in gfc_trans_omp_workshare(): Bad statement code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70855 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/70870] Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/70722] include_next in cmath skips user-defined wrapper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70722 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeccav at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug c++/70872] c++ regression malloc not found c++ 5.3.0 compiles fine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70872 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/70872] New: c++ regression malloc not found c++ 5.3.0 compiles fine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70872 Bug ID: 70872 Summary: c++ regression malloc not found c++ 5.3.0 compiles fine Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priorit

[Bug fortran/70856] [6/7 Regression] ICE with -fopenacc in get_constraint_for_ssa_var, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2952

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70856 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Looks like OACC generates aliases the "wrong way around"

[Bug fortran/70856] [6/7 Regression] ICE with -fopenacc in get_constraint_for_ssa_var, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2952

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70856 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openacc Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/70855] [6/7 Regression] ICE with -fopenmp in gfc_trans_omp_workshare(): Bad statement code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70855 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.2 Summary|[6 Regression] I

[Bug middle-end/70871] questionable optimisation in fold-const.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70871 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/70871] New: questionable optimisation in fold-const.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70871 Bug ID: 70871 Summary: questionable optimisation in fold-const.c Product: gcc Version: 5.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-

[Bug other/60040] AVR: error: unable to find a register to spill in class 'POINTER_REGS'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60040 --- Comment #12 from Bernd Schmidt --- Author: bernds Date: Fri Apr 29 08:59:09 2016 New Revision: 235625 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=235625&root=gcc&view=rev Log: avr-related reload fix from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj PR target/60

[Bug debug/68860] [6/7 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr36728-1.c -flto -O3 -g line 16/7 arg1 == 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68860 --- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt --- By the way, I think the value of y should be tested *after* the asm statement in line 17 not before it in line 16. At higher optimization levels the assignement may not have happened yet when gdb reaches lin

[Bug hsa/70857] [6/7 Regression] ICE with -fopenmp -fopenacc in insert_vi_for_tree, at tree-ssa-structalias.c:2813

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70857 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org Com

  1   2   >