[Bug c++/83921] [7/8 Regression] GCC rejects constexpr initialization of empty aggregate.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83921 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/83922] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in contains_struct_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83922 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/61240] [6/7/8 Regression] Incorrect warning "integer overflow in expression" on pointer-pointer subtraction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61240 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Jan 18 08:29:14 2018 New Revision: 256838 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256838&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/61240 * match.pd ((P + A) - P, P - (P + A), (P + A)

[Bug ipa/83051] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3: in edge_badness, at ipa-inline.c:1024

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83051 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/81601] [7/8 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Sure, for working on GIMPLE the code needs to be adjusted. On the other side, the advantage is that it will then be able to handle even cases that it couldn't before. Like right now it can handle: struct S

[Bug c++/83921] [7/8 Regression] GCC rejects constexpr initialization of empty aggregate.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83921 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Priority|P3

[Bug c++/83919] [8 regression] spurious -Wignored-qualifiers warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83919 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Priority|P3

[Bug c/61240] [6/7 Regression] Incorrect warning "integer overflow in expression" on pointer-pointer subtraction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61240 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] |[6/7 Regression] Incorrect

[Bug c++/83916] [7/8 Regression] Internal compiler error on valid template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83916 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Priority|P3

[Bug debug/83917] [8 Regression] with -mcall-ms2sysv-xlogues, stepping into x86 tail-call restore stub gives bad backtrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83917 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-debug Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/83918] [8 Regression][c++17] ICE on constexpr eval of datatype involving function and variadic template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83918 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug sanitizer/81601] [7/8 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, it isn't just optimize_bit_field_compare, but also fold_truth_andor_1 that creates this stuff. Doing this at gimple might have best framework in the reassoc pass, because you need to look through cond

[Bug sanitizer/81601] [7/8 Regression] incorrect Warray-bounds warning with -fsanitize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- Testcase where in f1/f3/f5 this optimization is done early (already in *.original dump), but in f2/f4/f6 is not. struct S { unsigned a:5; unsigned b:3; unsigned c:2; }; void bar (void); void f1 (struct S s

[Bug c++/83923] New: No destructor called for constructor argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83923 Bug ID: 83923 Summary: No destructor called for constructor argument Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/83919] [8 regression] spurious -Wignored-qualifiers warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83919 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65578] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578 --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Thu Jan 18 09:30:58 2018 New Revision: 256840 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256840&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [arm] PR target/65578: Fix builtin-bswap16-1.c and builtin

[Bug tree-optimization/83922] [8 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in contains_struct_check)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83922 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assigne

[Bug c++/83918] [8 Regression][c++17] ICE on constexpr eval of datatype involving function and variadic template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83918 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- For the record, there is another possible fix. Quoted loop nest from gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr81303.f: do j=1,ny jm1=mod(j+ny-2,ny)+1 jp1=mod(j,ny)+1

[Bug c++/83918] [8 Regression][c++17] ICE on constexpr eval of datatype involving function and variadic template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83918 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 > > --- Comment #10 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > For the record, there is another

[Bug c++/83919] [8 regression] spurious -Wignored-qualifiers warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83919 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #11) > On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > I think the zeroing stmt can be distributed into a separate loop nest > (up to whavev

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 > > --- Comment #12 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f

[Bug target/65578] FAIL: gcc.target/arm/builtin-bswap-1.c (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65578 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #13) > On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 > > > > --- Comment #12 from amker

[Bug c++/83923] No destructor called for constructor argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83923 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/83920] [nvptx] bad predicate reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82560] [7/8 Regression] Temporary object created as a default argument not destructed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mszyszkowski93 at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug tree-optimization/83887] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.c:1184 (error: dominator of 3 should be 21, not 18)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83887 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Jan 18 10:59:33 2018 New Revision: 256841 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256841&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-01-18 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/83887

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 > > --- Comment #14 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de f

[Bug fortran/83866] [8 Regression] ICE in gfc_release_symbol, at fortran/symbol.c:3087

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83866 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/83887] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in verify_dominators, at dominance.c:1184 (error: dominator of 3 should be 21, not 18)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83887 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- I hope it's possible to break the dependence by reordering passes so that graphite/parallelization could be moved earlier. There are several issues like this IIRC.

[Bug fortran/83865] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1567

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83865 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82604] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2006 410.bwaves ~50% performance regression with trunk@253679 when ftree-parallelize-loops is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82604 > > --- Comment #16 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- > I hope it's possible to break th

[Bug c++/83924] New: ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered with -Wduplicated-branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83924 Bug ID: 83924 Summary: ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered with -Wduplicated-branches Product: gcc Version: 7.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/80488] Erroneous error "lambda-expression in template argument"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80488 Andreas Reischuck changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arbmind at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/83924] ICE: Error reporting routines re-entered with -Wduplicated-branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83924 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83160] [8 regression] lvalue required as unary ‘&’ operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83160 --- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Thu Jan 18 11:53:50 2018 New Revision: 256842 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256842&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/83160] local ref to capture https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2

[Bug c++/83160] [8 regression] lvalue required as unary ‘&’ operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83160 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/83728] [8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug bootstrap/48879] Compilation cannot find file asm/errno.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48879 --- Comment #9 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Hi, installing linux-libc-dev:i386 resolved this issue for me (linux-libc-dev was already installed).

[Bug target/83920] [nvptx] bad predicate reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to cesar from comment #0) > I think there > might be other PTX JIT bugs lurking here, because the test program still > works as intended. I can make it fail on trunk, by changing the workaround to i

[Bug c++/81013] [7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid union in class hierarchy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81013 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|paolo.carlin

[Bug other/70268] add option -ffile-prefix-map to map one directory name (old) to another (new) in __FILE__, __BASE_FILE__and __builtin_FILE()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70268 --- Comment #16 from boris at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: boris Date: Thu Jan 18 13:17:37 2018 New Revision: 256847 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256847&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Add ability to remap file names in __FILE__, etc (PR other/7026

[Bug target/83920] [nvptx] bad predicate reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to cesar from comment #0) > the underlying problem is present > in og7 and impacts da-1.c). That's a failure I did not manage to reproduce. For me, at commit b4dd21b9a1f9f499c613b55225cad689b7928a7

[Bug c/51628] __attribute__((packed)) is unsafe in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51628 --- Comment #46 from Alexey Salmin --- Tested the latest patch, behavior looks very reasonable even in tricky cases. 1) No warning, gcd(12, 8) == 4 struct tuple_t { char c[12]; __int128_t i; } __attribute__((packed, align

[Bug libgomp/83589] [nvptx] mode-transitions.c and private-variables.{c,f90} execution FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83589 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Using the patch from PR83920 comment 3 and testing libgomp.oacc-c/c.exp makes the libgomp.oacc-c/c.exp failures of this PR go away. So, this might be a duplicate.

[Bug target/83920] [nvptx] bad predicate reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- This ( PR83589 - "[nvptx] mode-transitions.c and private-variables.{c,f90} execution FAILs at GOMP_NVPTX_JIT=-O0" ) may be a duplicate.

[Bug ipa/82256] [6/7/8 Regression] clones created by create_version_clone_with_body are not observable to insertion hooks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c/83925] New: [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 Bug ID: 83925 Summary: [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register Product: gcc Version: 5.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug middle-end/60725] [-Wreturn-type] false positive in trivial switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60725 --- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager --- Worth returning to this issue now that -Wreturn-type is enabled by default for gcc8.

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI Target|

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 --- Comment #2 from Марина Полякова --- No, I can't because pkgutil has only gcc 4 or 5 :-(

[Bug target/83926] New: ICE during RTL pass: ira, in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3633

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926 Bug ID: 83926 Summary: ICE during RTL pass: ira, in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3633 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug target/83926] ICE during RTL pass: ira, in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3633

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83926 Will Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/83927] New: Type-Bound Procedure on element of Derived Type PARAMETER Array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83927 Bug ID: 83927 Summary: Type-Bound Procedure on element of Derived Type PARAMETER Array Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/83816] [6/7 Regression] lto1: internal compiler error: compressed stream: data error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83816 --- Comment #17 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15) > > I can reproduce it: > Nice. (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #16) > Note your testcase only reproduces on the GCC 6 branch. It is expected that > th

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 --- Comment #3 from Марина Полякова --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Note GCC 5 is no longer maintained - can you test a newer version? No, I can't because pkgutil has only gcc 4 or 5 :-(

[Bug debug/83728] [8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- That latter bug has been introduced with PR79793.

[Bug target/82941] Missing vzeroupper with -march=skylake-avx512 -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82941 Bug 82941 depends on bug 82942, which changed state. Bug 82942 Summary: Generate vzeroupper with -mavx512f -mno-avx512er -O2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/82942] Generate vzeroupper with -mavx512f -mno-avx512er -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82942 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82941] Missing vzeroupper with -march=skylake-avx512 -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82941 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/83728] [8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > So, one problem here is that the debug marker for line 33 is moved by sched2 > too early (unnecessarily), before the prologue, before statement frontiers > introduction

[Bug debug/83728] [8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr68037-1.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83728 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/83928] New: implicit conversion of literal class type to unscoped enumeration can not be used as array size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83928 Bug ID: 83928 Summary: implicit conversion of literal class type to unscoped enumeration can not be used as array size Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/83619] [8 Regression] ICE in inliner: caller edge count does not match BB count

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83619 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Jan 18 15:57:48 2018 New Revision: 256850 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256850&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ipa/83619 * g++.dg/torture/pr83619.C: New testcase.

[Bug c++/83928] implicit conversion of literal class type to unscoped enumeration can not be used as array size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83928 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCON

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug ipa/83619] [8 Regression] ICE in inliner: caller edge count does not match BB count

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83619 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/81443] gcc-7.1.0/MIPS N32: build/genrecog.o: virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou

[Bug ipa/82256] [6/7/8 Regression] clones created by create_version_clone_with_body are not observable to insertion hooks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/83929] New: implicit conversion of literal class type can not be used as bit-field length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83929 Bug ID: 83929 Summary: implicit conversion of literal class type can not be used as bit-field length Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 43175 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43175&action=edit unpreprocessed input

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/81443] [7/8 regression] build/genrecog.o: virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81443 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- 128-bit types requite 128-bit alignment on SPARC64 so we cannot support that.

[Bug ipa/82256] [6/7/8 Regression] clones created by create_version_clone_with_body are not observable to insertion hooks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82256 --- Comment #6 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Thu Jan 18 16:26:54 2018 New Revision: 256853 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256853&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ipa/82256 patch by PaX Team * cgraphclones.c (

[Bug ipa/82107] [6/7/8 Regression] O2 optimisation on amd64 leads to error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82107 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/83651] [7/8 regression] 20% slowdown of linux kernel AES cipher

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651 --- Comment #6 from Arnd Bergmann --- Created attachment 43177 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43177&action=edit Single-file version of aes benchmark I've managed to condense the 'openssl speed aes-256-cbc' test into a singl

[Bug target/83920] [nvptx] bad predicate reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920 --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #3) > Likewise, reversing the if-then-else order in gemm.f90 makes the testcase > fail on trunk without this patch. Minimal version: ... ! { dg-do run }

[Bug target/82964] gfortran.dg/class_array_1.f03 regression since r254388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964 --- Comment #5 from Wilco --- Author: wilco Date: Thu Jan 18 16:37:44 2018 New Revision: 256854 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256854&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [AArch64] Fix fp16 test failures after PR82964 fix This fixes test failures in gc

[Bug middle-end/61037] array-bounds false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61037 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|

[Bug c++/80956] [7/8 Regression] ICE with abstract class vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80956 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/83651] [7/8 regression] 20% slowdown of linux kernel AES cipher

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83651 Arnd Bergmann changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #43177|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/83920] [nvptx] bad predicate reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83920 --- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6) > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #3) > > Likewise, reversing the if-then-else order in gemm.f90 makes the testcase > > fail on trunk without this patch. > >

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 Tom Lane changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tgl at sss dot pgh.pa.us --- Comment #8 from

[Bug c++/81013] [7/8 Regression] ICE with invalid union in class hierarchy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81013 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Thu Jan 18 17:11:43 2018 New Revision: 256856 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=256856&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2018-01-18 Paolo Carlini PR c++/81013 *

[Bug c++/81013] [7 Regression] ICE with invalid union in class hierarchy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81013 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE with |[7 Regression] ICE with

[Bug c++/83875] [feature request] target_clones compatible SIMD capability/length check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83875 --- Comment #8 from Roland Schulz --- I would suggest that: - inside multi-versioned (target_clones/target) function it depends on the active target - inside a constexpr context (function/variable, your examples) or always_inline function it depe

[Bug target/83925] [SPARC/Solaris] __int128 aligned(8) as function argument is passed in wrong register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Given the issues we had on ARM, AArch64 (see exempli gratia PR65956 and associated discussions), et cetera with overaligned/underaligned scalars, I think the right thing is not to consider alignment for the a

[Bug c++/83929] implicit conversion of literal class type can not be used as bit-field length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83929 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCON

[Bug target/83930] New: [7/8 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code 'const_int', have 'mem' in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3302

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83930 Bug ID: 83930 Summary: [7/8 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code 'const_int', have 'mem' in simplify_binary_operation_1, at simplify-rtx.c:3302 Product: gcc

[Bug middle-end/81657] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/20050503-1.c scan-assembler-not call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Wil

[Bug middle-end/81657] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/20050503-1.c scan-assembler-not call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #5) > Note there are other optimizations which can block a tailcall, for example: > > void *f (void *p) { return __builtin_strchr (p, 0); } This is irrelevant since this refers to

[Bug c++/83931] New: Add support for -nostdlib++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83931 Bug ID: 83931 Summary: Add support for -nostdlib++ Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug c++/83931] Add support for -nostdlib++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83931 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Use gcc for linking instead of g++ seems like the correct way.

[Bug c++/81167] [8 Regression] ICE on valid C++ code in deferred_printed_type, at cp/error.c:118

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81167 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug middle-end/81657] [8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/20050503-1.c scan-assembler-not call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81657 --- Comment #7 from Wilco --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #5) > > Note there are other optimizations which can block a tailcall, for example: > > > > void *f (void *p) { return __builtin_strchr (p, 0);

  1   2   >