[Bug c++/78484] New: if-else chain is not turned into a local jump table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78484 Bug ID: 78484 Summary: if-else chain is not turned into a local jump table Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug fortran/78479] ICE in gfc_apply_init, at fortran/expr.c:4135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78479 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/14799] [tree-ssa] convert a sequence of "if"s to a "switch" statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14799 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||timshen at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c++/78484] if-else chain is not turned into a local jump table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78484 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 --- Comment #4 from Joel Sherrill --- FWIW I haven't been able to build this far using i386-elf. It fails in libbacktrace doing a configure probe because there isn't a crt0.o. I can't figure out why it isn't building libgloss. I have it and newli

[Bug testsuite/77684] many tree-prof testsuite failures in parallel make check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/78485] New: Missed scalarization in simple read-from-clobber case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78485 Bug ID: 78485 Summary: Missed scalarization in simple read-from-clobber case Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/78485] Missed scalarization in undefined use after going out of scope case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78485 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Missed scalarization in |Missed scalarization in

[Bug tree-optimization/78485] Missed scalarization in undefined use after going out of scope case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78485 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Warning is not done at compile time but is handled at runtime via the sanitizers: -fsanitize-address-use-after-scope Enable sanitization of local variables to detect use-after-scope bugs. The option sets -fst

[Bug target/78458] [7 Regression] LRA ICE building libgcc for powerpc-linux-gnuspe e500v2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458 --- Comment #10 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #9) > I'm testing the following patch (which is a little more general) on a > powerpc64le-linux bootstrap to see if this survives. Ok, this patch passed bootstrap and

[Bug tree-optimization/78485] Missed scalarization in undefined use after going out of scope case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78485 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #3 from Ma

[Bug libstdc++/78483] Error: reference to 'on_exit' is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78483 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This is most likely because _GNU_SOURCE is defined when compiling with C++ code in GNU C++ mode.

[Bug libstdc++/78483] Error: reference to 'on_exit' is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78483 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Also on_exit is not part of the C++ standard at all.

[Bug libstdc++/78483] Error: reference to 'on_exit' is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78483 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/11196] _GNU_SOURCE vs. M_PI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11196 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||krzysztof at jusiak dot net --- Comment

[Bug c++/78486] New: feature request: std::iu16stringstream std::ou16stringstream, and utf8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78486 Bug ID: 78486 Summary: feature request: std::iu16stringstream std::ou16stringstream, and utf8 Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug go/78432] [7 Regression] -fdump-go-spec ICEs for aligned causing x32 libgo library to fail to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78432 --- Comment #4 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Tue Nov 22 23:25:07 2016 New Revision: 242728 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242728&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR go/78431 PR go/78432 * godump.c (go_form

[Bug go/78431] [7 regression] ICE in go_append_padding, at godump.c:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78431 --- Comment #2 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Tue Nov 22 23:25:07 2016 New Revision: 242728 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242728&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR go/78431 PR go/78432 * godump.c (go_form

[Bug go/78431] [7 regression] ICE in go_append_padding, at godump.c:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78431 Bug 78431 depends on bug 78432, which changed state. Bug 78432 Summary: [7 Regression] -fdump-go-spec ICEs for aligned causing x32 libgo library to fail to build https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78432 What|Removed

[Bug go/78431] [7 regression] ICE in go_append_padding, at godump.c:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78431 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/78432] [7 Regression] -fdump-go-spec ICEs for aligned causing x32 libgo library to fail to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78432 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/78479] ICE in gfc_apply_init, at fortran/expr.c:4135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78479 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Tue Nov 22 23:28:43 2016 New Revision: 242729 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242729&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-11-22 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/78479

[Bug tree-optimization/78476] snprintf(0, 0, ...) with known arguments not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78476 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- Created attachment 40122 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40122&action=edit Patch under test. Patch being tested (requires a patch for bug 78461).

[Bug tree-optimization/68548] bogus "may be used uninitialized" (predicate analysis)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68548 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug libstdc++/78486] feature request: std::iu16stringstream std::ou16stringstream, and utf8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78486 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Do these exist in standard C++ at all? If not then I doubt they will be added to the GCC's library.

[Bug tree-optimization/78476] snprintf(0, 0, ...) with known arguments not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78476 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/78487] New: asm cpuid code and -fgcse crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78487 Bug ID: 78487 Summary: asm cpuid code and -fgcse crashes Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ A

[Bug inline-asm/78487] asm cpuid code and -fgcse crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78487 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- What is the error message which you are getting? Here is how GCC's cpuid.h header look like for cpuid: #define __cpuid(level, a, b, c, d) \ __asm__ ("cpuid\n\t"

[Bug inline-asm/78487] asm cpuid code and -fgcse crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78487 --- Comment #2 from Stephan Beyer --- The following problem is only reproducible on one machine. I cannot reproduce it on any other machine. When compiling the attached C++ source file with g++ -O1 -fgcse, it crashes at the third cpuid call (ie,

[Bug inline-asm/78487] asm cpuid code and -fgcse crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78487 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Crashes at runtime or crashes inside GCC?

[Bug inline-asm/78487] asm cpuid code and -fgcse crashes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78487 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Also I doubt this code is correct.

[Bug target/78478] Compile Error for i386-rtems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, ubizjak at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78478 > > --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- > For 7.0, somebody changed i[34567]86-*-r

[Bug target/78458] [7 Regression] LRA ICE building libgcc for powerpc-linux-gnuspe e500v2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458 --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- For e500v2, that patch moves things from a libgcc build failure to a glibc build failure having built libgcc successfully: many files in glibc fail to build with errors of the form: ../sy

[Bug tree-optimization/78455] [7 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78455 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Nov 23 03:17:14 2016 New Revision: 242733 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242733&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/78455 * tree-ssa-uninit.c (can_cha

[Bug tree-optimization/78455] [7 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78455 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/78434] Incorrect warning about missing align_val_t for placement new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78434 --- Comment #3 from Marc Mutz --- Possibly. I couldn't check later versions because trunk failed to compile for me in i386.c.

[Bug c++/78488] New: ICE when building call to inherited default constructor.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78488 Bug ID: 78488 Summary: ICE when building call to inherited default constructor. Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug fortran/77505] Negative character length not treated as LEN=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77505 --- Comment #7 from Elizebeth Punnoose --- I plan to send the patch to gcc-patches from my official mail id, in a couple of days. Please do let me know if there are any suggestions/comments.

[Bug c++/78488] ICE when building call to inherited default constructor.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78488 --- Comment #1 from Eric Fiselier --- > GCC 6 exits with status 1 and without producing any diagnostics or an output > file Disregard that I was using a broken GCC 6. IDK how GCC 6 handles this bug.

[Bug rtl-optimization/77855] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77855 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Summary|[6 Regression] wr

[Bug target/77493] [6/7 Regression] -fcrossjumping (-O2) on ppc64le causes segfaults (jump to 0x0) (first bad r230091)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77493 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Known to fail|

[Bug middle-end/78429] [6/7 Regression] ice on valid C code on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes (internal compiler error: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:361)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug middle-end/78463] New: pure/const functions are assumed not to trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78463 Bug ID: 78463 Summary: pure/const functions are assumed not to trap Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization, wrong-code Severity: enha

[Bug tree-optimization/70586] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit and 64-bit modes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70586 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug target/78460] [7 Regression] [SH] OOM building glibc string tst-cmp.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78460 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/78459] [7 Regression] [SH] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start building glibc string tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78459 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/78458] [7 Regression] LRA ICE building libgcc for powerpc-linux-gnuspe e500v2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78458 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug fortran/78456] [6/7 Regression] 171.swim loops not interchanged, vectorized perf loss on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78456 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/68682] [6/7 Regression] [graphite] loop interchange no longer working after r227277

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68682 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- *** Bug 78456 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/78451] [7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline '_mm512_setzero_ps'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-* Target Milestone

[Bug c/78461] [7 Regression] ICE: in operator+=, at gimple-ssa-sprintf.c:214

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78461 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug target/78451] [7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline '_mm512_setzero_ps'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/78453] [7 Regression] arm-none-linux-gnueabihf bootstrap failed with revision 242549

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78453 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC

[Bug target/78439] [7 Regression] error: insn does not satisfy its constraints (arm-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439 --- Comment #7 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- *** Bug 78453 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/78429] [6/7 Regression] ice on valid C code on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes (internal compiler error: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:361)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- > In the end having a bool_with_only_0_and_1 predicate rather than > open-coding (several variants of) the test throughout the middle-end > might be a good idea... Like the to be attached patch?

[Bug middle-end/78429] [6/7 Regression] ice on valid C code on x86_64-linux-gnu at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes (internal compiler error: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:361)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78429 --- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou --- Created attachment 40106 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40106&action=edit Tentative fix

[Bug c/78464] New: Feature request: automatic function multi versioning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78464 Bug ID: 78464 Summary: Feature request: automatic function multi versioning Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug middle-end/78294] [5/6/7 Regression] -fsanitize=thread broken by ignoring __attribute__((tls_model("initial-exec")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294 --- Comment #23 from Dmitry Vyukov --- Markus, Changes to sanitizer runtimes are not committed into gcc tree. The upstream is in llvm tree. Changes must go there first, then they are backported to gcc tree. Your change will be overwritten on nex

[Bug c/78464] Feature request: automatic function multi versioning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78464 --- Comment #1 from Bo Lind --- See this StackOverflow question for a different phrasing of this issue: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/39979926/is-there-or-will-there-be-a-global-version-of-the-target-clones-attribute

[Bug middle-end/78294] [5/6/7 Regression] -fsanitize=thread broken by ignoring __attribute__((tls_model("initial-exec")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294 --- Comment #24 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Dmitry Vyukov from comment #23) > Markus, > > Changes to sanitizer runtimes are not committed into gcc tree. The upstream > is in llvm tree. Changes must go there first, then they are bac

[Bug ipa/78309] [7 Regression] ICE: in get_hash, at ipa-icf.c:2124

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78309 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Tue Nov 22 09:18:37 2016 New Revision: 242687 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242687&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Add sem_item::m_hash_set (PR ipa/78309) PR ipa/78309 * ip

[Bug middle-end/78294] [5/6/7 Regression] -fsanitize=thread broken by ignoring __attribute__((tls_model("initial-exec")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294 --- Comment #25 from Dmitry Vyukov --- > The question is if we want to change this or not and in what way. I would say that we need to change something, because current behavior is counter-intuitive. In tsan runtime we have a declaration with t

[Bug ipa/78309] [5/6 Regression] ICE: in get_hash, at ipa-icf.c:2124

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78309 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7 Regression] ICE: in |[5/6 Regression] ICE: in

[Bug middle-end/78294] [5/6/7 Regression] -fsanitize=thread broken by ignoring __attribute__((tls_model("initial-exec")))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78294 --- Comment #26 from Dmitry Vyukov --- > I was under the impression that upstream wouldn't be interested in this patch, because llvm uses static compiler-rt libs and clang doesn't run into this issue. Upstream is not interested from this point o

[Bug target/78255] [5/6/7 regression] Indirect sibling call causing wrong code generation for ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78255 --- Comment #2 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org --- The approach I had doesnt work, it ICE's elsewhere... At the time I am not sure how to fix this without disabling indirect tail calls for the current function if any sibcall is done within it. T

[Bug target/78439] [7 Regression] error: insn does not satisfy its constraints (arm-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de --- C

[Bug target/78439] [7 Regression] error: insn does not satisfy its constraints (arm-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78439 --- Comment #9 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #8) > Does something like that work? > > --- gcc/config/arm/vfp.md.orig2016-11-10 11:38:03.0 +0100 > +++ gcc/config/arm/vfp.md 2016-1

[Bug rtl-optimization/78437] [7 Regression] invalid sign-extend conversion in REE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78437 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4) > I have started bootstrap+regtest with your patch on alpha native. Please > expect results sometime tomorrow. Bootstrap and regression tests pass OK, the patch fixes

[Bug rtl-optimization/78437] [7 Regression] invalid sign-extend conversion in REE pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78437 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- > Bootstrap and regression tests pass OK, the patch fixes reported > gcc.dg/atomic/stdatomic-compare-exchange-[1,2].c failure. Thanks, no regressions with -free on SPARC either.

[Bug libfortran/78449] compile time ieee_support_halting is not correct on arm and aarch64 ( FAIL: gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_8.f90 -Os execution test )

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78449 --- Comment #1 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: nsz Date: Tue Nov 22 10:06:05 2016 New Revision: 242688 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242688&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR libgfortran/78449] XFAIL ieee_8.f90 on aarch64 and arm ARM and

[Bug middle-end/78445] [7 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at optabs.c:7014

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Nov 22 10:13:01 2016 New Revision: 242689 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242689&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/78445 * tree-if-conv.c (tree_if_conve

[Bug libfortran/78314] [aarch64] ieee_support_halting does not report unsupported fpu traps correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78314 nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from nsz

[Bug middle-end/78416] wrong code for division by (u128)~INT64_MAX at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78416 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Nov 22 10:14:21 2016 New Revision: 242690 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242690&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/78416 * expmed.c (expand_divmod): Use wide_i

[Bug tree-optimization/78436] [7 Regression] incorrect write to larger-than-type bitfield (signed char x:9)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Nov 22 10:15:43 2016 New Revision: 242691 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242691&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/78436 * gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (z

[Bug middle-end/78445] [7 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at optabs.c:7014

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78445 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78416] wrong code for division by (u128)~INT64_MAX at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78416 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.0 Known to fail|7.0

[Bug tree-optimization/78436] [7 Regression] incorrect write to larger-than-type bitfield (signed char x:9)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78436 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/78465] [7 regression] 29_atomics/headers/atomic/macros.cc FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78465 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug c++/57082] brace initialization requires public destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082 Stephane Kaloustian changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stephane.kaloustian@optimo-

[Bug libstdc++/78465] New: [7 regression] 29_atomics/headers/atomic/macros.cc FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78465 Bug ID: 78465 Summary: [7 regression] 29_atomics/headers/atomic/macros.cc FAILs Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug fortran/78466] New: [coarray] Explicit cobounds of a procedures parameter not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78466 Bug ID: 78466 Summary: [coarray] Explicit cobounds of a procedures parameter not respected Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/78466] [coarray] Explicit cobounds of a procedures parameter not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78466 vehre at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug target/77904] [ARM Cortex-M0] Frame pointer thrashes registers if assembly statements with "sp" clobber are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77904 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Author: thopre01 Date: Tue Nov 22 10:44:29 2016 New Revision: 242693 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242693&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-11-22 Thomas Preud'homme gcc/ PR target/77904

[Bug fortran/78466] [coarray] Explicit cobounds of a procedures parameter not respected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78466 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/78467] [7 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/comp-goto-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78467 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug gcov-profile/78467] New: [7 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/comp-goto-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78467 Bug ID: 78467 Summary: [7 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/comp-goto-1.c FAILs Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/77904] [ARM Cortex-M0] Frame pointer thrashes registers if assembly statements with "sp" clobber are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77904 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud'homme --- Author: thopre01 Date: Tue Nov 22 10:57:55 2016 New Revision: 242694 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242694&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix PR77904: callee-saved register trashed when clobbering sp 201

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 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 Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug libgomp/78468] New: [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 Bug ID: 78468 Summary: [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug libgomp/78468] [7 regression] libgomp.c/reduction-10.c and many more FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can you please bisect it? Not aware of any recent changes that could cause that.

[Bug tree-optimization/78428] [5/6/7 Regression] wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 64-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78428 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 40107 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=40107&action=edit Tentative patch Attaching tentative patch where I added bitregion_{start,end} to store_constructor_field. Actual

[Bug target/78451] [7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline '_mm512_setzero_ps'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kyukhin at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/78451] [7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-22a.c: error: inlining failed in call to always_inline '_mm512_setzero_ps'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78451 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/77673] [5/6/7 Regression] 4-byte load generated instead of 1-byte load, possibly reading past the end of object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77673 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P3 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Preud

[Bug tree-optimization/77673] [5/6/7 Regression] 4-byte load generated instead of 1-byte load, possibly reading past the end of object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77673 Thomas Preud'homme changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c++/57082] brace initialization requires public destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Stephane Kaloustian from comment #3) > In my understanding, this is related to the creation of a copy. > Using g++ (GCC) 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-4): No, that's a completely different is

[Bug c++/57082] brace initialization requires public destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57082 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to lucdanton from comment #1) > Using a very similar testcase I bisected the issue to r239783: > > //-- > struct no_destr { > no_destr() = default; > protected: > ~no_destr() = de

[Bug c++/78469] New: [7 Regression] defaulted default constructor causes bogus requirement for accessible destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78469 Bug ID: 78469 Summary: [7 Regression] defaulted default constructor causes bogus requirement for accessible destructor Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/78443] [OOP] Incorrect behavior with non_overridable keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com ---

[Bug fortran/61284] [OOP] non_overridable produces segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61284 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

<    1   2   3   >