[Bug tree-optimization/83326] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 648.exchange2_s ~6% performance regression with r255267 (reproducer attached)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 14:32:24 2017 New Revision: 255635 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255635&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/83326

[Bug tree-optimization/83202] Try joining operations on consecutive array elements during tree vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83202 Bug 83202 depends on bug 83326, which changed state. Bug 83326 Summary: [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 648.exchange2_s ~6% performance regression with r255267 (reproducer attached) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83326 What

[Bug c++/83428] Static initialization and struct with constexpr ctor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83428 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug c++/83425] No warning about assignment int to unsigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83425 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug sanitizer/83388] reference statement index not found error with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 > > --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- > I believe we do not stream any references to

[Bug target/83330] [7/8 Regression] generating unaligned store to stack for SSE register with -mno-push-args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83330 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug target/82989] [7/8 regression ] Inexplicable use of NEON for 64-bit math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82989 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug target/82961] [6/7 Regression] ICE in dwarf2out.c: deferred_asm_name != NULL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82961 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- I see that I was looking at the wrong leg here. This is a CAND_ADD, not a CAND_MULT, and I'm getting strange cost results on that path. The proposed change is still appropriate in my view, but not relevant

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5

[Bug c++/83020] [7 Regression] ('17) Class template constructor call skipped with no error when substitution fails in default argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83020 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.3

[Bug rtl-optimization/82973] [8 regression] ICE in output_constant_pool_2, at varasm.c:3896 on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82973 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |rtl-optimization Version|7.0

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/67842] Incorrect check in sese.h:bb_in_region

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67842 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/67842] Incorrect check in sese.h:bb_in_region

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67842 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 14:53:40 2017 New Revision: 255636 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255636&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/67842

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #61 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42885 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885&action=edit expand labels before markers This patch fixes both ia64 problems. Basically, the ebb scheduler gets thoroug

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] [7/8 Regression] Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug sanitizer/83388] reference statement index not found error with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- Possibly, but for now I would be fine with just removing the references and solving it once we have real pass that attach something to them (perhaps next stage1)

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017 New Revision: 255638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports The patch

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #62 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Thu Dec 14 15:02:58 2017 New Revision: 255638 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255638&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [SFN] next/prev_nonnote_insn_bb are no more, even for ports The patch

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #63 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 42885 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42885 expand labels before markers If you do this, then we should also revert the var-tracking.c etc. changes to look for deb

[Bug sanitizer/83388] reference statement index not found error with -fsanitize=null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 14 Dec 2017, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83388 > > --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- > Possibly, but for now I would be fine with

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #64 from Ulrich Weigand --- I'm seeing the same error on spu-elf when building newlib with GCC revision 255614. In case this isn't fixed by more recent changes already, here's a reduced test case (build with -O -g): const char * tes

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #65 from Andreas Schwab --- Author: schwab Date: Thu Dec 14 15:06:25 2017 New Revision: 255640 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255640&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR bootstrap/83396 * reload1.c (emit_input_reload_insns

[Bug tree-optimization/65258] Wrong array bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/65258] Wrong array bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65258 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 15:08:09 2017 New Revision: 255641 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255641&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/65258

[Bug tree-optimization/81740] [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in both 32-bit and 64-bit modes on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81740 --- Comment #4 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Testcase modified for the testsuite: > > int a[8][10] = { [2][5] = 4 }, c; > > int > main () > { > short b; > int i, d; > for (b = 4; b >= 0; b-

[Bug tree-optimization/56210] invalid -Warray-bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56210 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/66974] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Dec 14 15:18:16 2017 New Revision: 255642 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255642&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-12-14 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/66974

[Bug tree-optimization/66974] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66974 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #66 from Alexandre Oliva --- Jakub, *nod*, that's among the "changes added to support that". Ulrich, thanks for the report. r255639 compiles your testcase successfully on x86_64-linux-gnu-x-spu-elf with -O -g, so I guess the problem

[Bug tree-optimization/77291] False positive for -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77291 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-08-19 00:00:00 |2017-12-14 --- Comment #2 from Richard

[Bug lto/81406] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in check_die, at dwarf2out.c:6185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42886 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42886&action=edit gcc8-pr81406.patch Fixed with r251220. I'll add this testcase to the testsuite (verified it FAILs with r251218

[Bug target/81616] Update -mtune=generic for the current Intel and AMD processors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616 --- Comment #39 from Sebastian Peryt --- I have tested it on SKX with SPEC2006INT and SPEC2017INT and don't see any regressions.

[Bug lto/81406] [6/7/8 Regression] ICE in check_die, at dwarf2out.c:6185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Dec 14 15:26:00 2017 New Revision: 255643 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255643&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR lto/81406 * gcc.dg/lto/pr81406_0.c: New test. Added:

[Bug lto/81406] [6/7 Regression] ICE in check_die, at dwarf2out.c:6185

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81406 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] ICE in |[6/7 Regression] ICE in

[Bug rtl-optimization/83422] [8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2429 after "variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #67 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks for working on this! As of r255632 I'm still getting: Error: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment on arm targets when building gdb. A reduced testcase is: ---

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #68 from Jakub Jelinek --- Can you try the #c63 patch? Perhaps the arm backend is yet another thing that doesn't really like debug insns outside of basic blocks...

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/68519] condition_variable::wait_for does not work properly with float duration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- The problem is that duration doesn't have sufficient precision to represent now+1s as a float (the value is the same as now) #include constexpr std::chrono::seconds now(1513266095); constexpr auto then =

[Bug c++/83429] New: Incorrect line number reported by -Wformat-truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83429 Bug ID: 83429 Summary: Incorrect line number reported by -Wformat-truncation Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #11 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, for the i386 case, this simply comes down to the following. - mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4 - mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8 Garbage in, garbag

[Bug tree-optimization/83253] -ftree-slsr causes performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83253 --- Comment #12 from Bill Schmidt --- By contrast, on powerpc64le, we see: - mult_by_coeff_cost (3, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 8 - mult_by_coeff_cost (4, E_SImode, true) returns a cost of 4 These are the sort of costs one would expect,

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/83412] GCC line directive suppresses warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83412 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I see. I (obviously) didn't know that. It seems like something worth documenting.

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- How can a patch written in 2014 be responsible for a bug in GCC 4.4 exactly?

[Bug debug/83422] [8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2429 after "variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422 --- Comment #6 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42887 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42887&action=edit candidate patch Here's what I'm testing.

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- With -sanitize=signed-integer-overflow, we get in *.original: volatile unsigned char a = 1; long long int b = 2147483648; int c = (int) a * -2147483647 - (int) -b; instead of what we get without it: v

[Bug debug/83422] [8 Regression] ICE: in final_scan_insn, at final.c:2429 after "variable tracking size limit exceeded with -fvar-tracking-assignments, retrying without"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83422 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 42887 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42887 candidate patch Preapproved for trunk.

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #70 from Alexandre Oliva --- ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it completes testing, which should be Real Soon Now (TM) :-) If you got the cycles to give it a spin, by all means let us know how it goes! Thanks,

[Bug tree-optimization/83269] [8 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83269 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/83312] [8 regression] bogus -Warray-bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Thu Dec 14 17:15:39 2017 New Revision: 255649 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255649&root=gcc&view=rev Log: vrp_prop: Use dom_walker for -Warray-bounds (PR tree-optimization/83312

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 17:18:22 2017 New Revision: 255651 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255651&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/83427 detect weak result type from noexcept functions

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #71 from Andreas Schwab --- Bootstrap on ia64 with #c61 ended up with comparison failures. gcc/cp/name-lookup.o differs gcc/cp/parser.o differs gcc/bb-reorder.o differs gcc/build/genrecog.o differs gcc/gcov.o differs gcc/wide-int.o d

[Bug tree-optimization/83312] [8 regression] bogus -Warray-bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 83312, which changed state. Bug 83312 Summary: [8 regression] bogus -Warray-bounds warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83312 What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 17:29:22 2017 New Revision: 255652 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255652&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/83427 detect weak result type from noexcept functions

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #72 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #71) > Bootstrap on ia64 with #c61 ended up with comparison failures. > > gcc/cp/name-lookup.o differs > gcc/cp/parser.o differs > gcc/bb-reorder.o differs > gcc/bui

[Bug libstdc++/83427] [7/8 Regression] [C++17] weak result types and adaptable functions don't support noexcept functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83427 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/56257] std::vector allows access to the elements of _Vector_base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56257 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/79538] missing -Wformat-overflow with %s and non-member array arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538 --- Comment #4 from Qing Zhao --- fixed in https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=255654

[Bug target/80210] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311 on ppc64 for with __builtin_pow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210 --- Comment #20 from Peter Bergner --- Author: bergner Date: Thu Dec 14 17:43:32 2017 New Revision: 255655 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255655&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ Backport from mainline 2017-10-02 Peter Bergner

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #73 from Andreas Schwab --- I was using --without-build-config.

[Bug c++/83430] New: buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Bug ID: 83430 Summary: buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/83402] PPC64 implementation of ./rs6000/emmintrin.h gives out of range for _mm_slli_epi32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83402 --- Comment #2 from Paul Clarke --- I'd like to take a stab at fixing this.

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #74 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #70) > ktkatchov, I'll submit the patch as soon as it completes testing, which > should be Real Soon Now (TM) :-) If you got the cycles to give it a sp

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 --- Comment #16 from Joseph S. Myers --- I think the -Wclobbered warning probably needs to be reimplemented on GIMPLE, in a way that actually looks at whether it's possible for a variable to be set after the returns-twice call and before the vari

[Bug c++/83431] New: -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431 Bug ID: 83431 Summary: -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #75 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- As of GCC trunk r255655 I no longer see the GCC ICE building glibc for m68k (instead there's a non-ICE glibc build problem as noted in

[Bug middle-end/61118] [6/7/8 Regression] Indirect call generated for pthread_cleanup_push with constant cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61118 Yury Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #17

[Bug tree-optimization/83410] [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-4.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83410 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So to record my current thoughts. There's two competing needs here. We sometimes want to thread as the simplifications can enable vectorization. Other times we do not want to thread because threading inhi

[Bug tree-optimization/80520] [7/8 Regression] Performance regression from missing if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80520 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #8 fr

[Bug middle-end/59521] __builtin_expect not effective in switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59521 Daniel Fruzynski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzilla@poradnik-webmaster

[Bug middle-end/79538] missing -Wformat-overflow with %s and non-member array arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538 Qing Zhao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/83432] New: [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.cc:75 fails starting with 255630

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83432 Bug ID: 83432 Summary: [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.c c:75 fails starting with 255630 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug testsuite/83432] [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.cc:75 fails starting with 255630

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83432 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/68519] condition_variable::wait_for does not work properly with float duration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 20:41:52 2017 New Revision: 255665 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255665&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/68519 use native duration to avoid rounding errors

[Bug libstdc++/68519] condition_variable::wait_for does not work properly with float duration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68519 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/78809] Inline strcmp with small constant strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78809 --- Comment #22 from Qing Zhao --- https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-12/msg00962.html 2nd patch

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- "sendfile() will transfer at most 0x7000 (2,147,479,552) bytes, returning the number of bytes actually transferred. (This is true on both 32-bit and 64-bit systems.)" Oops.

[Bug fortran/83344] Use of uninitialized memory with ASSOCIATE and strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83344 --- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist --- With the patch in #2 (which in this case is equivalent to your patch in #8) I get on my charlen->size_t branch: ❯ gfortran -O0 -Wall -c a22.f90 a22.f90:20:0: associate(w4 => trim(s)) Warning: ‘.w4’ is

[Bug c++/83430] buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/83430] buffer overflow diagnostics for snprintf is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Dec 14 21:49:03 2017 New Revision: 255666 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255666&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/83279 handle sendfile not copying entire file PR l

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.5 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wake

[Bug c++/83431] -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/83431] -Wformat-truncation may incorrectly report truncation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83431 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #2 from M

[Bug testsuite/83432] [8 regression] moved test case 26_numerics/complex/inserters_extractors/char/dr2714.cc:75 fails starting with 255630

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83432 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|-

[Bug tree-optimization/81635] [8 Regression] nvptx SLP test cases regressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81635 --- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > So, for #c3 testcase on x86_64-linux, I can confirm: > -bash-4.3$ rm -f pr81635.c.*; /opt/notnfs/gcc-bisect/obj/gcc/cc1.249895 > -quiet -ftree-sl

[Bug target/81842] -fcf-protection -mcet is incompatible with makecontext family functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81842 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42836|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/83433] New: Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 Bug ID: 83433 Summary: Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/83433] Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The docs don't indicate that to me. The option warns about checking if the result of abs(x) is non-negative, which is true except for the undefined case of abs(INT_MIN), it doesn't warn about the call to ab

[Bug c/83433] Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Specifically, it says "warn about other cases where a comparison is simplified to a constant" Calling abs(INT_MIN) is not a comparison.

[Bug c/83433] Should -Wstrict-overflow=2 produce a diagnostic for abs(INT_MIN)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83433 --- Comment #3 from Shafik Yaghmour --- I still think it is awkwardly worded but your second point is valid about it only warning on comparisons. Please, feel free to close.

[Bug middle-end/83423] default_static_chain is sorry for non-nested functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83423 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/83396] [8 Regression] Bootstrap failures with Statement Frontiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83396 --- Comment #76 from Alexandre Oliva --- Created attachment 42890 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42890&action=edit move markers after labels while building the cfg This is a follow up to comment 61, that adjusts the IR to r

[Bug lto/83201] [7/8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 505.mcf_f produces incorrect output when built with -flto and FDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83201 --- Comment #5 from Pat Haugen --- Current FSF 6 branch works fine, so I have some bisect points. Will comment further as I find out.

<    1   2   3   >