[Bug c++/82110] Concept for default constructing works with new T, not with new T[1]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/82123] [7 regression] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for converted vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/54113] -Wmissing-prototypes produces false alarms for C99 inline functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54113 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/81318] [8 regression] ICE in to_reg_br_prob_base, at profile-count.h:189

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81318 Daniel Black changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.black at au dot ibm.com --- Commen

[Bug c++/70029] [8 Regression] ICE with C++11 and -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029 --- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill --- I believe r241831 fixed the actual problem that verify_type was catching. This still fails because free_lang_data_in_type clears TYPE_LANG_FLAG_4 on 't' but not 'ct'. Should something have added TYPE_CANON

[Bug c++/70029] [8 Regression] ICE with C++11 and -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70029 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/81640] [8 Regression] ICE in lookup_fnfields_slot_nolazy w/ -Wshadow=compatible-local

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81640 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/82053] [8 Regression] ICE on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82053 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/82053] [8 Regression] ICE on invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82053 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Sep 7 01:02:46 2017 New Revision: 251826 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251826&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/82053 - ICE with default argument in lambda in template

[Bug c++/82125] New: Suboptimal error message for range-based for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82125 Bug ID: 82125 Summary: Suboptimal error message for range-based for Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority

[Bug c++/69953] [5/6 Regression] Using lto causes gtkmm/gparted and gtkmm/inkscape compile to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69953 --- Comment #37 from Andreas K. Huettel --- Created attachment 42140 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42140&action=edit gparted build log Here's the build log from my Gentoo colleague. If you need more, please tell me precis

[Bug c++/82070] [8 Regression] inaccessible within this context in lambda rejects valid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82070 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgomp/82124] FAIL: libgomp.c++/pr69393.C (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82124 --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- Created attachment 42139 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42139&action=edit Full testresults diff (attaching the full diff between the 2 test logs to remind myself to open other bugs for

[Bug libgomp/82124] FAIL: libgomp.c++/pr69393.C (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82124 --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager --- Created attachment 42138 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42138&action=edit bzipped libgomp.log Oops, the log was too big to attach on its own; trying again after compressing it...

[Bug libgomp/82124] New: FAIL: libgomp.c++/pr69393.C (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82124 Bug ID: 82124 Summary: FAIL: libgomp.c++/pr69393.C (test for excess errors) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openmp Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/82070] [8 Regression] inaccessible within this context in lambda rejects valid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82070 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Wed Sep 6 19:36:48 2017 New Revision: 251819 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251819&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/82070 - error with nested lambda capture * pt.c (t

[Bug c++/82080] ICE: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82080 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/79433] __has_include() is true but #include gives #error when -std=old

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79433 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/81987] [8 Regression] ICE in verify_ssa with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/81987] [8 Regression] ICE in verify_ssa with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Sep 6 18:48:50 2017 New Revision: 251817 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251817&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-06 Bill Schmidt Backport from mainline:

[Bug tree-optimization/81987] [8 Regression] ICE in verify_ssa with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Sep 6 18:44:51 2017 New Revision: 251816 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251816&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-06 Bill Schmidt Backport from mainline:

[Bug tree-optimization/81987] [8 Regression] ICE in verify_ssa with -O3 -march=skylake-avx512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81987 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Wed Sep 6 18:42:56 2017 New Revision: 251815 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251815&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-09-06 Bill Schmidt Backport from mainline:

[Bug c++/82070] [8 Regression] inaccessible within this context in lambda rejects valid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82070 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/77726] On MinGW targets, user-defined `operator delete(void *)` is not called if the sized-deallocation version is not provided in C++14 mode when libstdc++ is linked dynamically

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77726 --- Comment #2 from Liu Hao --- It isn't weired if you know how a Dynamic-Link Library (DLL) on Windows works different than a Shared Object (SO) on Linux. Windows does not have a dynamic linker such as `ld.so` on Linux. Symbols in a DLL are res

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #43 from Wilco --- Author: wilco Date: Wed Sep 6 16:34:54 2017 New Revision: 251811 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251811&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR78468 - add alloca alignment test Add an alignment test to check that aligned

[Bug libstdc++/81413] overloaded new and delete might not be called when dynamically linked with libstdc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81413 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||drizt at land dot ru --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug libstdc++/82122] Overloaded operator new/delete in MinGW is not calling from .dlls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82122 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/77726] On MinGW targets, user-defined `operator delete(void *)` is not called if the sized-deallocation version is not provided in C++14 mode when libstdc++ is linked dynamically

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77726 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|major |normal

[Bug libstdc++/77726] On MinGW targets, user-defined `operator delete(void *)` is not called if the sized-deallocation version is not provided in C++14 mode when libstdc++ is linked dynamically

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77726 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/82067] G++ has an internal compiler error in possible_polymorphic_call_targets, at ipa-devirt.c:1557

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82067 --- Comment #5 from jupitercuso4 at gmail dot com --- $ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 --save-temps test.i test.cpp: In constructor 'xtsc_component::xtsc_queue_pin::xtsc_queue_pin(sc_core::sc_module_name, const xtsc_component::xtsc_queue_pin_parms&)': test.cp

[Bug middle-end/82123] New: [7 regression] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for converted vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123 Bug ID: 82123 Summary: [7 regression] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for converted vars Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/82121] [7/8 Regression] Unclassifiable statement during compilation when assigning to a Character array in a derived type contained in a ASSOCIATE statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82121 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/82120] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82120 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Sep 6 15:10:28 2017 New Revision: 251806 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251806&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR testsuite/82120 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c: Don't run

[Bug testsuite/82120] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82120 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > This is a total mess. I've copied a boilerplate from other tests that > require branch cost of 2. > I guess > 2017-09-06 Jakub Jelinek > > PR test

[Bug c++/78269] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type11.C and FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type9.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Thomas Preud'homme from comment #9) > (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8) > > Confirmed that 7.1.0 is fine. > > It is indeed. As can be seen in my comment #4, this was fixed somewh

[Bug testsuite/82120] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82120 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- This is a total mess. I've copied a boilerplate from other tests that require branch cost of 2. I guess 2017-09-06 Jakub Jelinek PR testsuite/82120 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c: Don't run

[Bug c++/78269] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type11.C and FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type9.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #8) > Confirmed that 7.1.0 is fine. It is indeed. As can be seen in my comment #4, this was fixed somewhere before 14th of November 2016, well before GCC 7 releas

[Bug c++/78269] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type11.C and FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type9.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|paolo.carlin

[Bug target/82108] [7 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug target/82112] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2262

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82112 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/82120] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82120 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug libstdc++/82122] New: Overloaded operator new/delete in MinGW is not calling from .dlls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82122 Bug ID: 82122 Summary: Overloaded operator new/delete in MinGW is not calling from .dlls Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/82121] New: Unclassifiable statement during compilation when assigning to a Character array in a derived type contained in a ASSOCIATE statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82121 Bug ID: 82121 Summary: Unclassifiable statement during compilation when assigning to a Character array in a derived type contained in a ASSOCIATE statement Product: gcc

[Bug tree-optimization/81588] [7/8 Regression] Wrong code at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81588 --- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #9) > I've noticed that the new testcase (gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c) fails on the > gcc-7 branch (r251446) on arm-linux-gnueabihf --with-cpu=cortex-a5 > --with-fpu

[Bug testsuite/82120] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82120 Bug ID: 82120 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr81588.c Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite

[Bug tree-optimization/58012] Gcc bootstrap failed with cloog-isl: undefined reference to std::istream::ignore(long)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58012 Markus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||extermina...@forty-seven.in |

[Bug c++/78269] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type11.C and FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type9.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269 --- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini --- Any idea about stock 7.1.0? Or 7.2.0? We want to add the information before resolving it.

[Bug c++/78269] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type11.C and FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type9.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #5) > Thomas, both trunk and gcc-7-brnanch seem fine to me, I'm tempted to close > the bug. Can you double check the released 7.1.0 on aarch64? Hi Paolo, yes I c

[Bug target/82108] [7/8 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Wed Sep 6 12:31:52 2017 New Revision: 251790 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251790&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-09-06 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/82108

[Bug c/82118] Instruction `lsrsne` unknown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82118 Paul Menzel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/82118] Instruction `lsrsne` unknown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82118 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug hsa/82119] Revision 251264 caused a number of run-time HSA failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82119 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug hsa/82119] New: Revision 251264 caused a number of run-time HSA failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82119 Bug ID: 82119 Summary: Revision 251264 caused a number of run-time HSA failures Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug c/82118] New: Instruction `lsrsne` unknown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82118 Bug ID: 82118 Summary: Instruction `lsrsne` unknown Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #42 from Wilco --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #41) > > If you cannot guarantee the alignment of the pointers to STACK_BOUNDARY then > > STACK_BOUNDARY is incorrect. > > No, it is correct as per the definition: > > -- M

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- It doesn't ICE with -fno-checking though.

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #41 from Eric Botcazou --- > If you cannot guarantee the alignment of the pointers to STACK_BOUNDARY then > STACK_BOUNDARY is incorrect. No, it is correct as per the definition: -- Macro: STACK_BOUNDARY Define this macro to th

[Bug middle-end/82117] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 502/602 compfail (ICE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82117 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trippels at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #40 from Wilco --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #39) > > The existing alloca code relies on STACK_BOUNDARY being set correctly. Has > > the value been fixed already for the OS variants mentioned? If stack > > alignment can'

[Bug middle-end/82117] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 502/602 compfail (ICE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82117 --- Comment #2 from Andrey Guskov --- Weird. I did a Bugzilla search for "r251650", but it told me that nothing was found.

[Bug middle-end/82117] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 502/602 compfail (ICE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82117 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82102] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in /home/arnd/git/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:4863

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82102 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot com --- C

[Bug middle-end/82117] New: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 502/602 compfail (ICE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82117 Bug ID: 82117 Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 502/602 compfail (ICE) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug sanitizer/82116] "nested bug in the same thread" when a bug is found while reporting another one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82116 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- That looks like upstream libsanitizer bug or limitation.

[Bug tree-optimization/82078] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Wed Sep 6 09:25:00 2017 New Revision: 251756 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251756&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Enqueue all SRA links for write flag propagation 2017-09-06 Martin Jam

[Bug tree-optimization/82078] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82078 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor --- Thanks for a nice small testcase. I have proposed a fix on the mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg00321.html

[Bug sanitizer/82116] New: "nested bug in the same thread" when a bug is found while reporting another one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82116 Bug ID: 82116 Summary: "nested bug in the same thread" when a bug is found while reporting another one Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #39 from Eric Botcazou --- > The existing alloca code relies on STACK_BOUNDARY being set correctly. Has > the value been fixed already for the OS variants mentioned? If stack > alignment can't be guaranteed by OS/runtime/prolog, STACK

[Bug middle-end/82095] [8 Regression] ICE in tree_nop_conversion at tree.c:11793 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82095 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Sep 6 09:10:26 2017 New Revision: 251754 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251754&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/82095 * varasm.c (categorize_decl_for_sectio

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wdijkstr at arm dot com --- Comment #38 from Wil

[Bug rtl-optimization/80463] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE with -fselective-scheduling2 and -fvar-tracking-assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463 Andrey Belevantsev changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |abel at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/78269] FAIL: FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type11.C and FAIL: g++.dg/cpp1z/noexcept-type9.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78269 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot com --- Comm

[Bug fortran/82064] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] multiple incompatible definitions of extended derived type via module use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064 --- Comment #6 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Aaaah! I missed the point wrt separate files. As far as I remember, we make sure that class or derived entities get their vtable but not unreferenced type declarations. Cheers Paul

[Bug middle-end/78468] [8 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|2016-11-25 00:

[Bug target/77308] surprisingly large stack usage for sha512 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77308 --- Comment #65 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Wed Sep 6 07:47:52 2017 New Revision: 251752 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=251752&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-09-06 Bernd Edlinger PR target/77308 * confi

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Confirmed, but for some reason hard to bisect. Stack overflow happens here: #15 0x007922d8 in value_dependent_expression_p (expression=) at ../../gcc/cp/pt.c:24095 #16 0x00792192 in value_depe

[Bug target/82106] [RISCV] Misaligned loads generated when doubles are split between stack and registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82106 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target|

[Bug ipa/82107] [5/6/7/8 Regression] O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Component|c++

[Bug target/82108] [7/8 Regression] Wrong vectorized code generated for x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82108 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* Status|NEW

[Bug c++/82115] [8 Regression] ICE on (valid) C++11 code: Segmentation fault signal terminated program cc1plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82115 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Version|un

[Bug c++/82107] [5/6/7/8 Regression] O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED