[Bug fortran/82865] Option -fdec collides with PDT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/82866] [PDT] ICE in resolve_fl_derived0, at fortran/resolve.c:14004

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82866 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/25829] [F03] Asynchronous IO support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/82866] [PDT] ICE in resolve_fl_derived0, at fortran/resolve.c:14004

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82866 --- Comment #6 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 07:48:12PM +, jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #4) > --- snip --- > > If it passes regression testin

[Bug bootstrap/82856] [8 Regression] --enable-maintainter-mode broken by automake failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82856 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Likely all active branches are affected and it's likely not a regression. > > Can you quickly figure what automake version fixed this? Unfortunately not. Tryin

[Bug bootstrap/82856] [8 Regression] --enable-maintainter-mode broken by automake failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82856 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- FWITW, the patch to automake --- automake-1.11.orig 2017-11-06 21:47:27.451349052 +0100 +++ automake2017-11-06 21:48:29.882102274 +0100 @@ -4156,7 +4156,7 @@ sub substitute_ac_subst_variables ($) {

[Bug bootstrap/82856] [8 Regression] --enable-maintainter-mode broken by automake failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82856 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://bugzilla.suse.com/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=10665

[Bug fortran/82865] Option -fdec collides with PDT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug target/82788] wrong code with -fstack-clash-protection --param=stack-clash-protection-probe-interval=10 on simple code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82788 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/82869] New: c_associated does not always give false for null pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869 Bug ID: 82869 Summary: c_associated does not always give false for null pointers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug sanitizer/82869] c_associated does not always give false for null pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/82870] New: Assignment by Designated Initializer Overwrites a Flexible Array Member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82870 Bug ID: 82870 Summary: Assignment by Designated Initializer Overwrites a Flexible Array Member Product: gcc Version: 6.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/82869] c_associated does not always give false for null pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869 --- Comment #2 from james.s.spencer at gmail dot com --- (In reply to kargl from comment #1) > (In reply to james.s.spencer from comment #0) > > I think if a pointer, p, is C_NULL_PTR then c_associated(p) should always > > return false. However, I

[Bug sanitizer/82869] c_associated does not always give false for null pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82869 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 11:40:52PM +, james.s.spencer at gmail dot com wrote: > > The third example occurs without the sanitizer enabled. > Grouping multiple bug reports into one is probably not a good i

[Bug target/82871] New: Unneeded lsls lsrs instructions generated on half word access for arm cortex-m4 target.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82871 Bug ID: 82871 Summary: Unneeded lsls lsrs instructions generated on half word access for arm cortex-m4 target. Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/82872] New: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in ignore_overflows on an out-of-bounds index in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872 Bug ID: 82872 Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in ignore_overflows on an out-of-bounds index in constexpr Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/82873] New: Generated copy constructor calls constructors for 0-sized array members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82873 Bug ID: 82873 Summary: Generated copy constructor calls constructors for 0-sized array members Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/82865] Option -fdec collides with PDT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865 --- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle --- I would be OK with a hard error. If so, we need to think about any other similir situations with other modern fortran features. Then we get into a game of chasing more rabits. Perhaps best to document and jus

[Bug c++/82874] New: invalid array index accepted in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82874 Bug ID: 82874 Summary: invalid array index accepted in constexpr context Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/82873] Generated copy constructor calls constructors for 0-sized array members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82873 --- Comment #1 from Matthew Fernandez --- Sorry, that was meant to be PR 14779, not 14799.

[Bug tree-optimization/82875] New: ICE at -Os on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.c:414

-multilib Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.0 20171106 (experimental) [trunk revision 254453] (GCC) $ gcc-trunk -m32 -Os abc.c during RTL pass: expand abc.c: In function ‘fn1’: abc.c:15:25: internal compiler error: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.c:414 d ? (a %= c

[Bug c++/82876] New: out-of-bounds pointer offset silently accepted in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82876 Bug ID: 82876 Summary: out-of-bounds pointer offset silently accepted in constexpr context Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/82877] New: negative array index accepted in a pointer difference expression in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82877 Bug ID: 82877 Summary: negative array index accepted in a pointer difference expression in constexpr context Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug c++/82874] excessively large array index accepted in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82874 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/82878] New: ICE in assign_temp, at function.c:968 when using optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82878 Bug ID: 82878 Summary: ICE in assign_temp, at function.c:968 when using optimization Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/82878] ICE in assign_temp, at function.c:968 when using optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82878 --- Comment #1 from Kyle Sunden --- Created attachment 42554 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42554&action=edit Preprocessed source file Needed to compress because the plain text is too large to submit. Did not realize it di

[Bug tree-optimization/82875] ICE at -Os on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.c:414

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82875 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asolokha at gmx dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/82875] ICE at -Os on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: in find_widening_optab_handler_and_mode, at optabs-query.c:414

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82875 --- Comment #2 from Qirun Zhang --- (In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #1) > This is likely a duplicate of PR82816. Hi Arseny, I tried it on r254484. It still exists. $ gcc-trunk -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc-trunk COLLECT_LTO_

[Bug middle-end/82878] [7/8 Regression] ICE in assign_temp, at function.c:968 when using optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82878 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug c++/82872] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in ignore_overflows on __PTRDIFF_MAX__ index

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82872 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/81803] [7/8 regression] miscompilation at -O1 on mips64el

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803 --- Comment #21 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Nov 7 07:44:58 2017 New Revision: 254488 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254488&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/81803 * lra-constraints.c (curr_i

[Bug rtl-optimization/81803] [7/8 regression] miscompilation at -O1 on mips64el

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81803 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

<    1   2