[Bug tree-optimization/67659] [5 regression] ICE: segfault: Linux kernel/rcu/tree.c:3261:6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67659 --- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- tree.i:13:6: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault void fn1(unsigned long p1) { ^ 0x99d1ef crash_signal ../../gcc/gcc/toplev.c:383 0xa5cc22 fold_builtin_alloca_with_align .

[Bug middle-end/67714] [6 Regression] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714 --- Comment #3 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kugan from comment #2) > It is the same issue and the patch posted in > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg00403.html fixes this > test-case too. Thanks for checking! I s

[Bug target/67701] Unnecessary/bad instructions for u32-casted access to external symbol (assumes misaligned, superfluous load)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67701 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 24 Sep 2015, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67701 > > --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Yes, AFAIK this was some obscure situa

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #19 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 > > vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug rtl-optimization/67715] [6 Regression][ARM] ICE in cselib.c during reload_cse_regs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67715 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug middle-end/67714] [6 Regression] signed char is zero-extended instead of sign-extended

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67714 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #20 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to vries from comment #18) Aren't you supposed to also look at: D: declaration of fpp B: block of f P: *fpp accesses: *fp and *fp2 etc ?

[Bug tree-optimization/67659] [5 regression] ICE: segfault: Linux kernel/rcu/tree.c:3261:6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67659 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67055] [5 Regression] Segmentation fault in fold_builtin_alloca_with_align in tree-ssa-ccp.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67055 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nwmcsween at gmail dot com --- Com

[Bug target/67716] New: [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 Bug ID: 67716 Summary: [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug web/64968] Upgrade GCC Bugzilla to 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64968 --- Comment #48 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #47) > Another cosmetic issue that I've noticed is that an extra newline is added > after every quoted comment. > > For example: > > > test > reply T

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #32 from Dominik Vogt --- Update: We've stepped through the code with gdb and noticed that the change in lra-lives.c has nothing to do with our observations. The new condition there is never executed, so it must be just the change in

[Bug sanitizer/64906] -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero creates false -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Sep 25 09:50:29 2015 New Revision: 228112 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228112&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/64906 * c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_divisi

[Bug target/67717] New: [6.0 regression] ICE when compiling WRF benchmark from cpu2006 with -Ofast -march=bdver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67717 Bug ID: 67717 Summary: [6.0 regression] ICE when compiling WRF benchmark from cpu2006 with -Ofast -march=bdver4 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #21 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #20) > (In reply to vries from comment #18) > > Aren't you supposed to also look at: > D: declaration of fpp > B: block of f > P: *fpp > accesses: *fp and *fp

[Bug sanitizer/64906] -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero creates false -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Sep 25 10:46:03 2015 New Revision: 228113 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228113&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/64906 * c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_divisi

[Bug sanitizer/64906] -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-zero creates false -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64906 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/67717] [6.0 regression] ICE when compiling WRF benchmark from cpu2006 with -Ofast -march=bdver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67717 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/67717] [6.0 regression] ICE when compiling WRF benchmark from cpu2006 with -Ofast -march=bdver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67717 --- Comment #2 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- yes reproducible with today's trunk. gcc version 6.0.0 20150925 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug target/67717] [6.0 regression] ICE when compiling WRF benchmark from cpu2006 with -Ofast -march=bdver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67717 --- Comment #3 from vekumar at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to vekumar from comment #2) > yes reproducible with today's trunk. > gcc version 6.0.0 20150925 (experimental) (GCC) I meant ICE still shows up in the trunk.

[Bug fortran/67170] PRE can't hoist out a readonly argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67170 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- I wonder why IPA SRA doesn't turn the scalar parameter from by-reference to by-value passing btw. I do see that IPA SRA doesn't handle recursion though, thus static int __attribute__((noinline)) foo (int *

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #1 from Kazumoto Kojima --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #0) > I have taken the build directory as is and created a compressed tar ball > from it which can be downloaded here: Could you send .i and .s files wit

[Bug target/67675] [SH] Improve __builtin_strcmp alignment test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67675 --- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo --- Author: olegendo Date: Fri Sep 25 13:09:04 2015 New Revision: 228118 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228118&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/67675 * config/sh/sh-mem.cc (sh_expand_cmpst

[Bug target/67717] [6.0 regression] ICE when compiling WRF benchmark from cpu2006 with -Ofast -march=bdver4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67717 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/57558] Loop not vectorized if iteration count could be infinite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57558 --- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Here's another example, extracted from another benchmark - it vectorizes if INDEX is defined to 'long' but not if INDEX is 'short': #include unsigned char *t_run_test(unsigned char *in, int N)

[Bug c/67680] Seg Fault in gcc 4.9.3 compiling libiberty/floatformat.c when building gcc 5.2.1 on Cygwin 64 on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67680 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67567] resolve.c: gfc_error called with iface->module == NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567 --- Comment #4 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- Author: manu Date: Fri Sep 25 14:24:11 2015 New Revision: 228131 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228131&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR pretty-print/67567 do not pass NULL as a string Fortran passes NU

[Bug fortran/67567] resolve.c: gfc_error called with iface->module == NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|manu

[Bug fortran/67567] resolve.c: gfc_error called with iface->module == NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67567 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 fr

[Bug target/67675] [SH] Improve __builtin_strcmp alignment test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67675 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #2 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #1) > Could you send .i and .s files with adding -save-temps to the problematic > compilation as usual? The build directory is useful only for the same >

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #3 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Created attachment 36388 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36388&action=edit Compressed C++ source for dcraw_common.cpp

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Created attachment 36389 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36389&action=edit Compressed, preprocessed C++ source for dcraw_common.cpp

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Created attachment 36390 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36390&action=edit Compressed, assembled C++ source for dcraw_common.cpp

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #6 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Attachment 36390 is not assembled, of course. But the actual assembler output from gcc :).

[Bug c/48885] missed optimization with restrict qualifier?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48885 --- Comment #22 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Fri, 25 Sep 2015, vries at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Standard: "Let D be a declaration of an ordinary identifier that provides a > means of designating an object P as a restrict-qualified

[Bug bootstrap/60946] Current 4.9 branch does not boot strap on FC20 with systemtap-devel installed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60946 --- Comment #9 from Andi Kleen --- Created attachment 36391 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36391&action=edit workaround This workaround fixes it. Disable -gc-section for libstdc++. It seems like a linker bug. I opened a bi

ivybridge processor is not supported by -march ivybridge

I asked at linux questions about if my mobile processor really was an ivybridge and if -march ivybridge was really what it could use. https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=b99823329486c2467986c8809a00263c&p=5425639#post5425639 My processor is described here: http://ark.intel.com

[Bug middle-end/67718] New: [aarch64] long double incorrect code for copysign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67718 Bug ID: 67718 Summary: [aarch64] long double incorrect code for copysign Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/63346] xserver_xorg-server-1.15.1 crash on RaspberryPi when compiled with gcc-4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63346 Peter Seiderer changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm1176jzf-s |

[Bug c++/51333] cxxabi.h incompatible with -fkeep-inline-functions at link time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51333 Josh Baudhuin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joshb at cadence dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/55603] [F03] Memory leak with scalar allocatable function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55603 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Morin --- Author: mikael Date: Fri Sep 25 20:28:33 2015 New Revision: 228151 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228151&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Add PR fortran/55603 working test gcc/testsuite/ PR fortran/5560

[Bug fortran/37336] [F03] Finish derived-type finalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336 Bug 37336 depends on bug 55603, which changed state. Bug 55603 Summary: [F03] Memory leak with scalar allocatable function result https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55603 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug fortran/55603] [F03] Memory leak with scalar allocatable function result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55603 Mikael Morin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/58566] [c++11] ICE with invalid expression in lambda body

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58566 Vittorio Zecca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeccav at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug target/61578] [4.9 regression] Code size increase for ARM thumb compared to 4.8.x when compiling with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61578 --- Comment #33 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Fri Sep 25 21:06:08 2015 New Revision: 228153 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228153&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-09-25 Vladimir Makarov PR target/61578 * l

[Bug fortran/67525] ICE on select type with improper selector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67525 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Sep 25 22:28:04 2015 New Revision: 228155 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228155&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-09-25 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/67525

[Bug fortran/67614] ICE on using arithmetic if with null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Sep 25 22:30:26 2015 New Revision: 228156 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228156&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-09-25 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/67614

[Bug fortran/67525] ICE on select type with improper selector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67525 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Sep 25 22:45:27 2015 New Revision: 228157 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228157&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-09-25 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/67525

[Bug fortran/67614] ICE on using arithmetic if with null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Sep 25 22:59:15 2015 New Revision: 228158 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=228158&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2015-09-25 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/67614

[Bug fortran/67614] ICE on using arithmetic if with null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67614 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/67525] ICE on select type with improper selector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67525 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug target/67718] [aarch64] long double incorrect code for copysign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67718 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/67719] New: [concepts] bug with concepts using logical or

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67719 Bug ID: 67719 Summary: [concepts] bug with concepts using logical or Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/67720] New: [concepts] bug with recursive constrained function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67720 Bug ID: 67720 Summary: [concepts] bug with recursive constrained function Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/67391] [SH] Convert clrt addc to normal add insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67391 --- Comment #15 from Oleg Endo --- Created attachment 36393 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36393&action=edit Another trail, doesn't work with LRA (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #14) > Created attachment 36387 [de

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo --- Created attachment 36394 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36394&action=edit preprocessed C++ source for dcraw_common.cpp The code in attachment 36389 doesn't compile with the trunk compiler b

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 --- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo --- On sh-elf/newlib there are no threads, so -fopenmp doesn't work. I can't reproduce it Without -fopenmp.