[Bug c++/66067] New: tree check ICE: accessed elt 1 of tree_vec with 0 elts in write_template_args, at cp/mangle.c:2574

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067 Bug ID: 66067 Summary: tree check ICE: accessed elt 1 of tree_vec with 0 elts in write_template_args, at cp/mangle.c:2574 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/48904] x86_64-knetbsd-gnu fails to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48904 --- Comment #4 from Bernhard Reutner-Fischer --- Author: aldot Date: Fri May 8 07:33:42 2015 New Revision: 222903 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222903&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/48904 x86_64-knetbsd-gnu missing defs 2015-05-08 H.

[Bug c/66066] [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer element is not constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- Yes, that is expected (in C99!). See . New tests c90-left-shift-1.c and c99-left-shift-1.c explicitly test such behavior.

[Bug c/66068] New: error: type variant has different TYPE_VFIELD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66068 Bug ID: 66068 Summary: error: type variant has different TYPE_VFIELD Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/66066] [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer element is not constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > Yes, that is expected (in C99!). See > . New tests > c90-left-shift-1.c and c99-left-shift-1.c e

[Bug target/48904] x86_64-knetbsd-gnu fails to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48904 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||6.0 --- Comment #5 from Bernh

[Bug target/65697] __atomic memory barriers not strong enough for __sync builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65697 --- Comment #54 from mwahab at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to mwahab from comment #53) > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #50) > > Created attachment 35478 [details] > > implement SYNC flag for memory model > > > > This compiles on all

[Bug debug/66069] New: New -fkeep-all-method-instances

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66069 Bug ID: 66069 Summary: New -fkeep-all-method-instances Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: debug

[Bug c/66066] [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer element is not constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- The reason is that -1 << 0 is UB in C99, and we should reject the program only when the invalid shift is happening in a context where a constant expression is required. But if it turns out to break too many

[Bug fortran/66065] ICE on assignment to deferred-length character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66065 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/66069] New -fkeep-all-method-instances

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66069 Jan Kratochvil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Version|6.0

[Bug c/66066] [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer element is not constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c++/66067] [6 Regression] tree check ICE: accessed elt 1 of tree_vec with 0 elts in write_template_args, at cp/mangle.c:2574

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66067 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/66066] [6 Regression] r222889 causes bogus error: initializer element is not constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66066 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- You can always make it a -pedantic error only...

[Bug c/66063] under O2 level ,compiler ICE: internal compiler error: in build_int_cst_wide, at tree.c:1222

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66063 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Status|UN

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #38 from Frédéric Buclin --- I can confirm the regression. I reported this issue upstream: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1162914 Thanks Markus for catching that! :)

[Bug tree-optimization/66070] New: cc1 gets killed by OOM killer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66070 Bug ID: 66070 Summary: cc1 gets killed by OOM killer Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug rtl-optimization/66048] [i386] ICE in create_pre_exit when both AVX and MPX are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66048 --- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > There is a *very* picky assert in mode-switching.c that otherwise allows > various exceptions when expected sequence: > > (set (reg X) ...) > > (use (reg X)) Wit

[Bug fortran/66058] Backslash in comment kills compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66058 --- Comment #3 from Matt Thompson --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > (In reply to Matt Thompson from comment #1) > > Addendum, > > > > I've tried various gfortran flags, but for the life of me, none seem to get > > this to work. > > > >

[Bug fortran/65894] [6 Regression] severe regression in gfortran 6.0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894 --- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Dominique, comment #27 looks perfect. That would be great for us > with the upcoming revision of gfortran 6.0.0. First, obviously Andre's test gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_11.f90 does not cover

[Bug c++/66071] New: Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 Bug ID: 66071 Summary: Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/66071] Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 --- Comment #1 from Tomas Ukkonen --- Created attachment 35498 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35498&action=edit compilation results 1

[Bug c++/66071] Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Ukkonen --- Created attachment 35499 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35499&action=edit Compilation results 2

[Bug c++/66071] Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 Tomas Ukkonen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tomas.ukkonen at iki dot fi --- Comment

[Bug c++/66072] New: Trying to compile a makefile in c++, error in Description

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66072 Bug ID: 66072 Summary: Trying to compile a makefile in c++, error in Description Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug debug/66069] New -fkeep-all-method-instances

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66069 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug bootstrap/65664] ARM bootstrap fails with --with-fpu=neon-vfpv4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65664 --- Comment #4 from Gabor Lukacs --- The following patch makes the problem go away insofar as bootstrap is concerned: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02510.html "This patch to libgo, from Peter Collingbourne, changes some of the C

[Bug debug/66069] New -fkeep-all-method-instances

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66069 Jan Kratochvil changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pmuldoon at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug fortran/66073] New: [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073 Bug ID: 66073 Summary: [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug jit/66074] New: gcc_jit_result_get_code returns a void*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66074 Bug ID: 66074 Summary: gcc_jit_result_get_code returns a void* Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug rtl-optimization/66048] [i386] ICE in create_pre_exit when both AVX and MPX are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66048 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #2) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > > There is a *very* picky assert in mode-switching.c that otherwise allows > > various exceptions when expected sequence

[Bug c++/66071] Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you run gdb to see where the crash is? This might be a glibc "issue" by including only part of pthread library.

[Bug c++/66071] Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 Tomas Ukkonen changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.9.2 |5.1.1 --- Comment #5 from Tomas Ukkonen

[Bug libstdc++/61458] std::aligned_storage is bigger than expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61458 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #4) > Hi Jon. Frankly Are you 100% sure (in terms of middle-end/back-end details) > that the maximum alignment supported for a type of less than 4 bytes is 4? It's a

[Bug c++/66072] Trying to compile a makefile in c++, error in Description

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66072 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/58909] C++11's condition variables fail with static linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58909 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tomas.ukkonen at iki dot fi --- Commen

[Bug c++/66071] Calling condition variable's notify_all() causes SEGFAULT when the binary is statically linked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66071 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/66036] strided group loads are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 66036, which changed state. Bug 66036 Summary: strided group loads are not vectorized https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/66036] strided group loads are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66036 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri May 8 15:13:55 2015 New Revision: 222914 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222914&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-05-08 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/66036

[Bug fortran/66073] [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug fortran/66058] Backslash in comment kills compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66058 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:31:39PM +, matthew.thompson at nasa dot gov wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66058 > > --- Comment #3 from Matt Thompson --- > (In reply to kargl from comme

[Bug tree-optimization/66013] Missed optimization after inlining va_list parameter, -m32 case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66013 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from vrie

[Bug rtl-optimization/66075] New: [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/adds1.c scan-assembler adds\tw[0-9]+, w[0-9]+, w[0-9]+, lsl 3

: aarch64-*-* FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/adds1.c scan-assembler adds\tw[0-9]+, w[0-9]+, w[0-9]+, lsl 3 FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/adds1.c scan-assembler adds\tx[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, x[0-9]+, lsl 3 --- gcc-20150507/Build/adds1.s 2015-05-08 18:01:52.723445982 +0200 +++ gcc-20150508/Build/adds1.s 2015-05-08

[Bug rtl-optimization/66075] [6.0 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/adds1.c scan-assembler adds\tw[0-9]+, w[0-9]+, w[0-9]+, lsl 3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66075 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC

[Bug target/66049] Few AArch64 extend and add with shift tests generates sub optimal code with trunk gcc 6.0.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66049 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org --- C

[Bug c/65179] Introduce new C warning: -Wshift-negative-value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65179 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 fro

[Bug fortran/66073] [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/66073] [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- It could be a duplicate of pr66041. Could you try the patch in comment #3?

[Bug fortran/66073] [6 Regression] 465.tonto in SPEC CPU 2006 failed to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66073 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66076] New: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in vec_safe_grow, at vec.h:618 with -funroll-loops -mno-prefer-avx128 -march=bdver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66076 Bug ID: 66076 Summary: [5/6 Regression] ICE: in vec_safe_grow, at vec.h:618 with -funroll-loops -mno-prefer-avx128 -march=bdver4 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug bootstrap/65865] [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug bootstrap/65865] [6 Regression] Bootstrap failure on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65865 --- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #5) > Created attachment 35502 [details] > ira-hook.patch > > Here is the patch introducing the hook. Could you try it and give me your > opinion. Thanks. Sor

[Bug rtl-optimization/65862] [MIPS] IRA/LRA issue: integers spilled to floating-point registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65862 --- Comment #9 from Vladimir Makarov --- Created attachment 35503 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35503&action=edit ira-hook.patch Here is the patch. Could you try it and give me your opinion about it. Thanks.

[Bug c/66077] New: Right shift calculation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66077 Bug ID: 66077 Summary: Right shift calculation error Product: gcc Version: 4.4.7 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assigne

[Bug c/66077] Right shift calculation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66077 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/65894] [6 Regression] severe regression in gfortran 6.0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894 --- Comment #30 from Dominique d'Humieres --- While the Mikael's patch allows the test suite to run as expected, adding the patch for pr58586 breaks it again.

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #39 from Frédéric Buclin --- Bug fixed upstream, and here. :)

[Bug c/66077] Right shift calculation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66077 --- Comment #2 from Mike Jost --- Thanks for the explanation! Bit by the 64 bit. That will teach me to use uint32_t instead of assuming 32 for unsigned long. I've been running on 32 bit embedded targets for too long! Regards, Michael Jost mike.

[Bug fortran/65894] [6 Regression] severe regression in gfortran 6.0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65894 --- Comment #31 from Jürgen Reuter --- Shall I do any checks now? It seems that Mikael's patch is doing the right thing, and you found the one that breaks it again.

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #40 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- Thanks for the quick fix.

[Bug tree-optimization/66010] [6 Regression] Missed optimization after inlining va_list parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66010 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #7 from vrie

[Bug libstdc++/66078] New: 20_util/specialized_algorithms/uninitialized_copy/808590.cc fails with -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078 Bug ID: 66078 Summary: 20_util/specialized_algorithms/uninitialized_copy/8085 90.cc fails with -std=c++11 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords

[Bug libstdc++/66078] 20_util/specialized_algorithms/uninitialized_copy/808590.cc fails with -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66078 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/59012] alignas does not support parameter pack expansions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59012 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri May 8 21:15:21 2015 New Revision: 222927 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=222927&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/59012 * parser.c (cp_parser_std_attribute_list): Ha

[Bug fortran/66041] [6 Regression] Matmul ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66041 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #35491|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/66077] Right shift calculation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66077 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug fortran/66079] New: [6.0 Regression] memory leak with source allocation in internal subprogram

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66079 Bug ID: 66079 Summary: [6.0 Regression] memory leak with source allocation in internal subprogram Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/66080] New: incorrect debug info for CTOR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66080 Bug ID: 66080 Summary: incorrect debug info for CTOR Product: gcc Version: 4.7.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assig

[Bug go/61303] gccgo: segfault, regression since 4.8.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61303 --- Comment #9 from Ian Lance Taylor --- >From looking at the code it seems that mmap may be returning MAP_FAILED. That could lead to this crash. I don't know why mmap would fail, though. It's a shame that the program works when run under trus

[Bug fortran/65925] Memory leak with source allocation nested inside the source of another source allocation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65925 Damian Rouson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/66081] New: Invalid ARM ldrb instruction offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66081 Bug ID: 66081 Summary: Invalid ARM ldrb instruction offset Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug fortran/66082] New: [4.9.2/5.1.0/6.0.0] memory leak: automatic array with derived type array constructor actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66082 Bug ID: 66082 Summary: [4.9.2/5.1.0/6.0.0] memory leak: automatic array with derived type array constructor actual argument Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/66038] SIGSEGV at stage 2 build/genmatch --gimple ../../gcc-5.1.0/gcc/match.pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66038 --- Comment #3 from Douglas Mencken --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > I think you may run into a host compiler issue? (ISTR a similar bug for > darwin) > > What is your host compiler? I suppose ppc-darwin still uses gcc 4.2.x,

[Bug c/66083] New: Linux kernel fails to boot with O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66083 Bug ID: 66083 Summary: Linux kernel fails to boot with O3 optimization Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/66083] Linux kernel fails to boot with O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66083 --- Comment #1 from Pranith Kumar --- Created attachment 35508 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35508&action=edit config file

[Bug c/66083] Linux kernel fails to boot with O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66083 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/66083] Linux kernel fails to boot with O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66083 --- Comment #3 from Pranith Kumar --- The kernel fails to boot. It works using 4.7/4.8 but 4.9 does not work. Not sure what you mean which file. How do I pin point that?

[Bug c/66083] Linux kernel fails to boot with O3 optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66083 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Pranith Kumar from comment #3) > The kernel fails to boot. It works using 4.7/4.8 but 4.9 does not work. Not > sure what you mean which file. How do I pin point that? You could start with

[Bug sanitizer/64839] libsanitizer shouldn't require

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64839 --- Comment #10 from Yury Gribov --- Did libsanitizer build for you both with and without xdr.h? If yes, I'll just go ahead and submit this.