[Bug fortran/65024] [4.9/5 Regression] [OOP] ICE concerning unlimited polymorphic pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5) > > The ICE for the reduced test in comment 2 [...] > Started at r207986. Huh, that was me committing a patch for PR 60234. Guess I should take a

[Bug tree-optimization/62217] [4.9/5 Regression] DOM confuses complete unrolling which in turn causes VRP to warn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 13 Feb 2015, law at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62217 > > --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- > But replacement with the most dominating name

[Bug middle-end/65074] [5 Regression] r220674 broke C++ PIEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65074 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 34772 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34772&action=edit gcc5-pr65074-test.patch Testcase for the testsuite.

[Bug rtl-optimization/65067] regression on accessing volatile bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug middle-end/53623] [4.8 Regression] sign extension is effectively split into two x86-64 instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.7.4 |4.8.4 Summary|[4.7/4.8 Regre

[Bug rtl-optimization/65067] regression on accessing volatile bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067 --- Comment #2 from Terry Guo --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > This looks more like a failure to use bfi rather than shifts and bit > operations. If the above IF clause returns false, which means we don't need to consider stric

[Bug rtl-optimization/65067] regression on accessing volatile bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, terry.guo at arm dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65067 > > --- Comment #2 from Terry Guo --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > >

[Bug target/65064] [5.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60115.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064 --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab --- It doesn't bootstrap though: ada/ali.o: In function `ali__alis__reallocate': ali.adb:(.text+0x2170): relocation truncated to fit: GPREL22 against `.rodata' ada/ali.o: In function `ali__units__reallocate': a

[Bug c++/65061] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Issue with using declaration and member class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug c++/65061] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] Issue with using declaration and member class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Target Milestone|---

[Bug ipa/65059] [5 Regression] Chrome LTO: lto1: internal compiler error: in ipa_comdats, at ipa-comdats.c:360

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65059 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/61765] [4.9/5 Regression] Rejects valid BIND(C) ENTRY

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61765 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The code is accepted up to r199034 (2013-05-17) and rejected after r199221 > (2013-05-22). Likely r199118, r199119, or r199120 (pr 48858). It is r199120.

[Bug lto/65015] LTO produces randomly ordered debug information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015 --- Comment #19 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #18) > Created attachment 34753 [details] > A patch even for -flto-partition=none we produce 45: 0 FILELOCAL DEFAULT ABS ccPyi2gu.o In the

[Bug lto/65015] LTO produces randomly ordered debug information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015 --- Comment #20 from Richard Biener --- The assember already produces Symbol table '.symtab' contains 11 entries: Num:Value Size TypeBind Vis Ndx Name 0: 0 NOTYPE LOCAL DEFAULT UND 1:

[Bug c/65066] [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with -Wformat=2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65066 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug target/65064] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60115.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0 Summary|[5.0 regression]

[Bug c++/65075] [5 Regression] constexpr regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65075 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Priority|P3

[Bug tree-optimization/51017] GCC 4.6 performance regression (vs. 4.4/4.5), PRE increases register pressure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51017 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug target/65064] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60115.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064 --- Comment #9 from Andreas Schwab --- before: 2170: 02 38 01 02 00 24 [MII] addl r39=0,r1 2170: GPREL22 .sdata+0x38 after: 2170: 02 38 01 02 00 24 [MII] addl r39=0,r1

[Bug tree-optimization/63593] ICE: verify_gimple failed: incompatible types in PHI argument 0 with -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/65063] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-double-reduc-6.c FAILs with -O3 -fno-tree-loop-ivcanon -fno-tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65063 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Depends on|

[Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #13 from Dominik Vogt --- I see. But what bug or bugs do we have here then? Current symptoms are: (1) A bogus call addres may be stored in the backtrace structure (i.e. next instruction's address minus 1). (2) The address from (1)

[Bug middle-end/65074] [5 Regression] r220674 broke C++ PIEs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65074 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/65066] [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with -Wformat=2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65066 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Mon Feb 16 11:16:33 2015 New Revision: 220732 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220732&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/65066 * c-format.c (check_format_types): Handle null param

[Bug c/65040] [5 Regression] gcc-5 -Wformat broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040 --- Comment #13 from Marek Polacek --- Note that this patch had a followup: PR65066.

[Bug c/65066] [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with -Wformat=2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65066 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/55334] [4.8/4.9 Regression] mgrid regression (ipa-cp disables vectorization)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334 Andrew Senkevich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew.n.senkevich at gmail dot co

[Bug tree-optimization/55334] [4.8/4.9 Regression] mgrid regression (ipa-cp disables vectorization)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334 --- Comment #48 from Jakub Jelinek --- That sounds way too risky for the older release branches.

[Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #14 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 34773 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34773&action=edit Experimental fix The attached patch is a sketch of a possible fix (at the expense of duplicating some code from

[Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #15 from Dominik Vogt --- P.S.: The patch only addresses s390 and s390x.

[Bug fortran/64432] [5 Regression] SYSTEM_CLOCK(COUNT_RATE=rate) wrong result for integer(4)::rate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64432 --- Comment #19 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #17) > Created attachment 34765 [details] > Handle KIND=1 and KIND=2 Jerry, I applied your patch on top of rev. 220730. Unfortunately it ICEs on the following simple

[Bug tree-optimization/63593] ICE: verify_gimple failed: incompatible types in PHI argument 0 with -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Ok, one issue is that predictive commoning removes statements and releases SSA names while they are still in use, and then allocates new SSA names before eventually releasing the using stmts. Delaying that

[Bug tree-optimization/55334] [4.8/4.9 Regression] mgrid regression (ipa-cp disables vectorization)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334 --- Comment #49 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 16 Feb 2015, andrew.n.senkevich at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55334 > > Andrew Senkevich changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug ipa/65059] [5 Regression] Chrome LTO: lto1: internal compiler error: in ipa_comdats, at ipa-comdats.c:360

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65059 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Feb 16 12:28:40 2015 New Revision: 220733 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220733&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix PR ipa/65059. PR ipa/65059 * ipa-comdats.c (ipa_comdats): Do

[Bug target/65064] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60115.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In

[Bug fortran/65024] [4.9/5 Regression] [OOP] ICE concerning unlimited polymorphic pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024 --- Comment #7 from homgran --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4) > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation > of unlimited polymorphism. In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/5 Regression]'

[Bug target/65064] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60115.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab

[Bug target/65064] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pr60115.c -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65064 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #11) > Ada doesn't preprocess. Can you try my first patch? If it works, I can explain why :-(.

[Bug ipa/65076] New: [5 Regression] 16% tramp3d-v4.cpp compile time regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076 Bug ID: 65076 Summary: [5 Regression] 16% tramp3d-v4.cpp compile time regression Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug ipa/65076] [5 Regression] 16% tramp3d-v4.cpp compile time regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener

[Bug c/65077] New: memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 Bug ID: 65077 Summary: memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1 Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/59990] [4.8 regression] incorrect memcpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990 anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anders.blomdell at

[Bug middle-end/59990] [4.8 regression] incorrect memcpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990 --- Comment #20 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- Created attachment 34776 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34776&action=edit Shell-script for testing flag variations

[Bug ipa/65076] [5 Regression] 16% tramp3d-v4.cpp compile time regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65076 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > So it's either time spent in the inliner (unlikely, though the patch has an > extra update_callee_keys call) or different (early) inlining decisions. > >

[Bug middle-end/59990] [4.8 regression] incorrect memcpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990 --- Comment #21 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- Sorry attachments belongs to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077

[Bug c/65077] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/59990] [4.8 regression] incorrect memcpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990 --- Comment #22 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- Sorry attachments belongs to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077

[Bug middle-end/59990] [4.8 regression] incorrect memcpy optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59990 --- Comment #23 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- Sorry attachments belongs to bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077

[Bug c/65077] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #2 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- Created attachment 34777 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34777&action=edit preprocessed program

[Bug c/65077] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #3 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- Created attachment 34778 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34778&action=edit Shell-script for testing flag variations

[Bug ipa/64963] [5 Regression] IPA Cloning/Splitting does not copy function section attributes resulting in kernel miscompilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64963 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 34779 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34779&action=edit gcc5-pr64963.patch Updated untested patch (well, tested with dg.exp=ipa/* ipa.exp so far), whcih doesn't intro

[Bug c/65077] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/64849] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64849 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/65077] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #5 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- No, but my users insists on using Matlab/Simulink, and the testcase is a heavily downsized version of what is done in their S-functions.

[Bug rtl-optimization/64921] [4.9/5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Co

[Bug c/65077] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to anders.blomdell from comment #5) > No, but my users insists on using Matlab/Simulink, and the testcase is a > heavily downsized version of what is done in their S-functions. I mean - seriously

[Bug fortran/64921] [4.9/5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_allocate_18.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64921 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/65077] [4.9/5 Regression] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|REOPENED

[Bug fortran/64980] [5 Regression] ICE in trans-expr.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64980 --- Comment #19 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > BTW: should we add the original test case from pr64230 the test suite, > because class_allocate_18.f90 failed to spot this regression? Why not? Better safe than sorry. Note that the original test d

[Bug c++/65075] [5 Regression] constexpr regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65075 --- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini --- Hi Jakub. Something like the below passes testing and works for the testcase: Index: constexpr.c === --- constexpr.c(revision 220731) +++ c

[Bug tree-optimization/65077] [4.9/5 Regression] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #8 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > (In reply to anders.blomdell from comment #5) > > No, but my users insists on using Matlab/Simulink, and the testcase is a > > heavily dow

[Bug c++/65075] [5 Regression] constexpr regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65075 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Yeah, makes sense, I've just been looking for what the flag is for the lambda types. I can add the testcase and bootstrap/regtest it.

[Bug tree-optimization/65077] [4.9/5 Regression] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #9 from anders.blomdell at control dot lth.se --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) >* tree-ssa-structalias.c (find_func_aliases): Assume that >floating-point values are not used to transfer pointers. Assume

[Bug go/64999] s390x libgo test failure in TestMemoryProfiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999 --- Comment #16 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Back in comment #9 I was trying to suggest that runtime.Callers should adjust the PC that it returns to Go code. That seems simpler and should have the same effect as your patch.

[Bug regression/64812] [4.9 regression] x86 LibreOffice Build failure: undefined reference to acquire

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812 Michael Stahl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||caolanm at redhat dot com,

[Bug fortran/60898] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] model compile error with gfortran 4.7 and gcc 4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60898 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|NEW

[Bug regression/64812] [4.9 regression] x86 LibreOffice Build failure: undefined reference to acquire

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812 --- Comment #6 from Michael Stahl --- Created attachment 34780 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34780&action=edit manually minimized reproducer to reproduce, build with: g++ -m32 -std=gnu++11 -Os -c /tmp/fmgridif.ii -o /tmp/

[Bug tree-optimization/65077] [4.9/5 Regression] memcpy generates incorrect code with floating point numbers and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65077 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 34781 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34781&action=edit untested patch Patch which fixes the testcase and doesn't regress the vectorization testcase from PR37021.

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] New: [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 Bug ID: 65078 Summary: [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2 Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 --- Comment #1 from Yuri Rumyantsev --- Created attachment 34782 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34782&action=edit test-case to reproduce Options -m32 -msse2 -O3 must be used.

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- Similar to PR21182 ? As suggested in the above PR, does "-fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure" make any difference?

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra Target|

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > Similar to PR21182 ? > > As suggested in the above PR, does "-fschedule-insns -fsched-pressure" make > any difference? No.

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems this has started with r216247, and indeed, compiling the testcase with -std=gnu89 even with latest trunk results in those 25 %esp references, while using -std=gnu11 even with r19 results in 69 %esp

[Bug ipa/64812] [4.9 regression] x86 LibreOffice Build failure: undefined reference to acquire

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64812 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Target|i?86-*-*| Status|WAITING

[Bug fortran/65079] New: -Werror= does not work on implicit-procedure warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65079 Bug ID: 65079 Summary: -Werror= does not work on implicit-procedure warning Product: gcc Version: 4.8.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug rtl-optimization/65078] [5.0 Regression] 4.9 and 5.0 generate more spill-fill in comparison with 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65078 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug tree-optimization/63593] ICE: verify_gimple failed: incompatible types in PHI argument 0 with -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||5.0 Known to fail|5.0

[Bug tree-optimization/63593] ICE: verify_gimple failed: incompatible types in PHI argument 0 with -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63593 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Feb 16 14:52:14 2015 New Revision: 220734 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220734&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-02-16 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/63593 * tree

[Bug lto/65015] LTO produces randomly ordered debug information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015 --- Comment #21 from Richard Biener --- Finally fixed for 5.0 with reasonably backportable patches.

[Bug lto/65015] LTO produces randomly ordered debug information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015 --- Comment #22 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Feb 16 14:53:23 2015 New Revision: 220735 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220735&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-02-16 Richard Biener PR lto/65015 * varasm.c (default

[Bug fortran/65079] -Werror= does not work on implicit-procedure warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65079 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/65024] [4.9/5 Regression] [OOP] ICE concerning unlimited polymorphic pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation > > of unlimited polymorphism. > > In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/5 Regression]' tag from the summary > title?

[Bug testsuite/64145] [5 Regression] gcc.dg/graphite/isl-codegen-loop-dumping.c UNRESOLVED after r217315.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64145 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ipa/65059] [5 Regression] Chrome LTO: lto1: internal compiler error: in ipa_comdats, at ipa-comdats.c:360

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65059 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/64883] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883 --- Comment #25 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19) Are we going with this fix? If so. please post it to gcc-patches with a ChangeLog.

[Bug ipa/65006] [5 Regression] 252.eon in SPEC CPU 2000 miscompiled with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65006 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug libstdc++/64883] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883 --- Comment #26 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to howarth from comment #25) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19) > > Are we going with this fix? If so. please post it to gcc-patches with a > ChangeLog. was posted 3rd Feb https://gcc.gnu

[Bug fortran/65024] [4.9/5 Regression] [OOP] ICE concerning unlimited polymorphic pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65024 --- Comment #9 from homgran --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8) > > > AFAICT the ICE for the original test is as old as the first implementation > > > of unlimited polymorphism. > > > > In that case, should we remove the '[4.9/

[Bug bootstrap/48009] Bootstrap failure: c++locale.cc: invalid conversion from 'const char*' to 'char*'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009 --- Comment #12 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Mon Feb 16 15:19:20 2015 New Revision: 220736 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220736&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Daniel Richard G. PR bootstrap/48009 PR bootstrap/53348

[Bug bootstrap/53348] Conflicting fast-integer types on AIX: vs. gcc/config/rs6000/aix-stdint.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348 --- Comment #10 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Mon Feb 16 15:19:20 2015 New Revision: 220736 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220736&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Daniel Richard G. PR bootstrap/48009 PR bootstrap/53348

[Bug ipa/65059] [5 Regression] Chrome LTO: lto1: internal compiler error: in ipa_comdats, at ipa-comdats.c:360

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65059 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/48009] Bootstrap failure: c++locale.cc: invalid conversion from 'const char*' to 'char*'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48009 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/65058] AIX: missing extern decorations "[DS]" for functions and "[UA]" for variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65058 --- Comment #3 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Mon Feb 16 15:33:09 2015 New Revision: 220737 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220737&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-02-16 Michael Haubenwallner David Edelsohn P

[Bug bootstrap/53348] Conflicting fast-integer types on AIX: vs. gcc/config/rs6000/aix-stdint.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53348 --- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn --- Author: dje Date: Mon Feb 16 15:33:09 2015 New Revision: 220737 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220737&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-02-16 Michael Haubenwallner David Edelsohn

[Bug fortran/64986] class_to_type_4.f90: valgrind error: Invalid read/write of size 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64986 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Reduced test program test implicit none type t integer :: ii end type t type, extends(t) :: u real :: rr end type u type, extends(t) :: v real, allocatable :: rr(:) end type

[Bug target/65058] AIX: missing extern decorations "[DS]" for functions and "[UA]" for variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65058 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/64883] FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++*/all_attributes.cc (test for excess errors) on x86_64-apple-darwin14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64883 --- Comment #27 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #26) > (In reply to howarth from comment #25) > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #19) > > > > Are we going with this fix? If so. please post it

[Bug c++/65080] New: constexpr-ness lost by using alias in definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65080 Bug ID: 65080 Summary: constexpr-ness lost by using alias in definition Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

  1   2   >