[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Roberts --- Created attachment 42792 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42792=edit /proc/cpuinfo fro rpi3 (cortex a-53) on aarch64 /proc/cpuinfo fro rpi3 (cortex a-53) on aarch64 while this is the

[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Roberts --- Richard, I have checked with latest snapshot (20171203) and problem persists. I think the issue is that the CPU on the original Raspberry Pi and Pi Zero is not detected properly by gcc.

[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Roberts --- Created attachment 42791 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42791=edit /proc/cpuinfo from odroid-c2 (cortex-A53) aarch64 mode /proc/cpuinfo from odroid-c2 (cortex-A53) aarch64 mode

[Bug middle-end/83286] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286 --- Comment #5 from Alex Weslowski --- Please note, this appears to be fixed (hopefully) in GCC 7.2.0. Either that, or my version of GCC 6.4.0 is borked. (Or, it may be an intermittent error, I suppose.)

[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Roberts --- Created attachment 42790 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42790=edit /proc/cpuinfo from Raspberry Pi 3 (cortex-A53) arm mode /proc/cpuinfo from Raspberry Pi 3 (cortex-A53) arm mode

[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Roberts --- Created attachment 42789 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42789=edit /proc/cpuinfo from rpi b (arm1176jzf-s) /proc/cpuinfo from rpi b (arm1176jzf-s)

[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Roberts --- Created attachment 42788 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42788=edit /proc/cpuinfo from odroid-xu4 big/little cortex-a15/cortex-a7 /proc/cpuinfo from odroid-xu4 big/little

[Bug driver/83206] -mfpu=auto does not work on ARM (armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83206 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Roberts --- Created attachment 42787 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42787=edit /proc/cpuinfo from cortex-a7 Raspberry Pi 2b v1.1 /proc/cpuinfo from cortex-a7 Raspberry Pi 2b v1.1

[Bug middle-end/83286] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286 --- Comment #4 from Alex Weslowski --- Verbose output: Making gp in O6.1-none-msys_nt make[1]: Entering directory 'pari-2.9.3/O6.1-none-msys_nt' /usr/bin/gcc -v -save-temps -c -O3 -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer

[Bug middle-end/83286] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286 --- Comment #3 from Alex Weslowski --- Created attachment 42786 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42786=edit Preprocessed file mpker.i

[Bug middle-end/83286] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286 --- Comment #2 from Alex Weslowski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ and provide the preprocessed source? Hi, will attach the mpker.i file to this bug. The zip file has also been updated.

[Bug target/83285] non-atomic stores can reorder more aggressively with seq_cst on AArch64 than x86: missed x86 optimization?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|missed-optimization |wrong-code

[Bug middle-end/83286] internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/83286] New: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83286 Bug ID: 83286 Summary: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction Product: gcc Version: 6.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- An ever-so-slightly slightly simplified test case (no loop) is the following: void bar (std::vector , int num) { if (num > 0) { const auto sz = a.size (); if (sz < 3) a.assign (1,

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- This libstdc++ patch helps avoid both the warning and the bogus memset. if Jonathan isn't opposed to this kind of annotation I think there might be other places in vector where this approach could improve

[Bug target/83285] New: non-atomic stores can reorder more aggressively with seq_cst on AArch64 than x86: missed x86 optimization?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83285 Bug ID: 83285 Summary: non-atomic stores can reorder more aggressively with seq_cst on AArch64 than x86: missed x86 optimization? Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status:

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83273] if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/83284] New: bootstrap comparison failure in libiberty/stack-limit.o

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83284 Bug ID: 83284 Summary: bootstrap comparison failure in libiberty/stack-limit.o Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build

[Bug tree-optimization/83283] [7/8 Regression] Casting from boolean to unsigned char to enum returns incorrect results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Component|c++

[Bug c++/83283] New: Casting from boolean to unsigned char to enum returns incorrect results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283 Bug ID: 83283 Summary: Casting from boolean to unsigned char to enum returns incorrect results Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/83282] New: missing comma in format changes output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282 Bug ID: 83282 Summary: missing comma in format changes output Product: gcc Version: 6.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug sanitizer/82076] inconsistencies between sanitizer and -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82076 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/82103] spurious stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82103 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- This (and pr80641) all feel closely related. Transforming into a trap early means we're not likely to get these reports which would be unfortunate because they often point to a failing of the optimizer. I

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81616 --- Comment #37 from Jan Hubicka --- Author: hubicka Date: Mon Dec 4 23:59:11 2017 New Revision: 255395 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255395=gcc=rev Log: PR target/81616 * athlon.md: Disable for generic. *

[Bug driver/80271] Support environment variable CLICOLOR_FORCE to enable -fdiagnostics-color

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80271 --- Comment #4 from Tyler Mace --- The argument against environment variables doesn't make sense, when the GCC_COLORS environment variables are used right within this feature.

[Bug testsuite/83281] New: [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281 Bug ID: 83281 Summary: [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug driver/80271] Support environment variable CLICOLOR_FORCE to enable -fdiagnostics-color

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80271 Tyler Mace changed: What|Removed |Added CC||macetw at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug middle-end/81876] [7/8 Regression] bogus -Wstrict-overflow warning with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[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 #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to T B from comment #0) > However, when I compiled it with GCC 5.4.0 (g++ -std=c++14 *.cpp *.h > -lstdc++fs) everything works fine and I can copy files with a size of over > 2.0GiB. That's

[Bug preprocessor/61638] "warning: multi-line comment" unclear and has false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Mon Dec 4 23:08:22 2017 New Revision: 255392 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255392=gcc=rev Log: Fix warnings in * include/bits/regex_compiler.tcc: Use C-style comment

[Bug c++/83273] if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/83280] gcc doesn't realize a returning value from complete switch(enum...) does return a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83280 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83273] if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 --- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Dec 4 22:52:07 2017 New Revision: 255390 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255390=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/83273 - constexpr if allows non-constant condition *

[Bug middle-end/82123] [7/8 regression] spurious -Wformat-overflow warning for converted vars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82123 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com

[Bug c++/83280] New: gcc doesn't realize a returning value from complete switch(enum...) does return a value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83280 Bug ID: 83280 Summary: gcc doesn't realize a returning value from complete switch(enum...) does return a value Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/83272] Unnecessary mask instruction generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272 --- Comment #2 from Mason --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > I don't believe the andl is not needed after shrb, as that is an 8-bit > operand size, it should leave the upper 56 bits of the register unmodified. > And unsigned

[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7/8 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at redhat dot com,

[Bug c++/83268] internal compiler error: in lambda_expr_this_capture, at cp/lambda.c:785

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83268 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- Works in trunk.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 Bug ID: 83279 Summary: std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/81165] [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 4, 2017 6:55:02 PM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 > >Jeffrey A. Law changed: > >

[Bug tree-optimization/83278] missing -Wformat-overflow for an inlined __builtin___sprintf_chk with a local buffer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83278 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic See Also|

[Bug tree-optimization/83278] New: missing -Wformat-overflow for an inlined __builtin___sprintf_chk with a local buffer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83278 Bug ID: 83278 Summary: missing -Wformat-overflow for an inlined __builtin___sprintf_chk with a local buffer Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/83271] const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271 --- Comment #4 from Alexey Salmin --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > At least there's a simple workaround (adding 'extern' to the definition > where the attribute). That's what we do, so this is really a minor bug. Still, I

[Bug c++/83273] if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug preprocessor/61638] "warning: multi-line comment" unclear and has false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- And you also can't use #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wcomment" to silence it.

[Bug preprocessor/61638] "warning: multi-line comment" unclear and has false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (Changed from "enhancement" to "normal" because the current behaviour is just bad)

[Bug preprocessor/61638] "warning: multi-line comment" unclear and has false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-10-05 00:00:00 |2017-12-4

[Bug c++/83271] const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- At least there's a simple workaround (adding 'extern' to the definition where the attribute).

[Bug c++/83273] if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid

[Bug c++/83271] const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271 --- Comment #2 from Alexey Salmin --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > I must say I fail to see usefulness of adding the attribute to the > definition rather than declaration though. Here's my case. There's a const bool flag in a

[Bug fortran/83275] [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/81934] after install of 7.2.0 the libcilkrts.la has extra quote chars in it for dependency_libs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81934 --- Comment #2 from Dennis Clarke --- So then, this is a case of "wait and see" wherein any previous release of the gcc tarballs will just continue to fail?

[Bug tree-optimization/69224] [6/7 Regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O3 and struct pointer parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69224 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com

[Bug target/83252] Wrong code with "-march=skylake-avx512 -O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252 --- Comment #11 from Dmitry Babokin --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > We can add this if needed. I think regression could be made make generic > and add a generic new bug component. We do have some very active people >

[Bug target/83252] Wrong code with "-march=skylake-avx512 -O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu --- Comment #10

[Bug c++/83271] const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/70216] [SH] Implement __builtin_trap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70216 --- Comment #20 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #19) > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #18) > > > I can confirm that the patch from comment #6 resolves the problem for me. > > Thanks

[Bug fortran/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 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from

[Bug rtl-optimization/83272] Unnecessary mask instruction generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/82286] [6/7 Regression] Wrong array subscript is above array bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82286 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com

[Bug target/83252] Wrong code with "-march=skylake-avx512 -O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252 --- Comment #9 from Dmitry Babokin --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > I suppose one could try scripting something with -fdisable-{tree,rtl}-$dump > and seeding the list of passes to enable/disable with -fdump-{tree,rtl}-all. > >

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note the #c8 testcase started failing with r247578 - before that we weren't doing that good job in evrp to optimize it.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81601 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #8

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- void foo (unsigned p, unsigned a, unsigned b) { unsigned q = p + 7; if (a - (1U + __INT_MAX__) >= 2) __builtin_unreachable (); int d = p + b; int c = p + a; if (c - d != __INT_MAX__)

[Bug fortran/83246] internal compiler error or loader problem might be related to a PARAMETER statement being in a BLOCK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83246 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/81165] [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #10

[Bug fortran/83275] [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/83274] [PDT] ICE in delete_root and missing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83274 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/83262] SELECT CASE slower than IF/ELSE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:03:01AM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83262 > > --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > Dick Henderson in clf

[Bug c++/83273] if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/83277] New: [8 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277 Bug ID: 83277 Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug c/83276] New: ICE in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1050

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83276 Bug ID: 83276 Summary: ICE in pre_and_rev_post_order_compute, at cfganal.c:1050 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/83275] [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275 --- Comment #2 from G. Steinmetz --- $ cat z5.f90 program p type t(a) allocate (a) end type end $ gfortran-8-20171203 -c z5.f90 f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 0xb6a96f crash_signal

[Bug fortran/83275] [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||82173 --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/83275] New: [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83275 Bug ID: 83275 Summary: [PDT] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185 (and others) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/83274] [PDT] ICE in delete_root and missing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83274 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||82173 --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/83274] New: [PDT] ICE in delete_root and missing error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83274 Bug ID: 83274 Summary: [PDT] ICE in delete_root and missing error Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Even the (T)P - (T)(P + A) -> -(T) A transformation looks wrong, consider A being 0U+INT_MIN, and P -1U. (int)-1U - (int)(-1U+INT_MIN) is INT_MIN without overflow, while -(int)INT_MIN overflows. Note it

[Bug c++/83273] New: if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83273 Bug ID: 83273 Summary: if constexpr does not fail with run-time conditions Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- So it is indeed the /* (T)(P + A) - (T)(P + B) -> (T)A - (T)B */ (for add (plus pointer_plus) (simplify (minus (convert (add @@0 @1)) (convert (add @0 @2))) (if (element_precision (type)

[Bug tree-optimization/80907] [6/7 Regression] False positive: "warning: array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80907 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8 Regression] False|[6/7 Regression] False

[Bug c/83236] "Did you mean" suggestions maybe shouldn't offer implementation-private names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- Ah, thanks. Indeed, and this stuff is highly FE specific.

[Bug c/83236] "Did you mean" suggestions maybe shouldn't offer implementation-private names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236 --- Comment #5 from Zack Weinberg --- I was just thinking that other language front-ends might want to offer spell-checking suggestions with their own rules for which names are/aren't appropriate to suggest in context, but maybe we can worry

[Bug tree-optimization/78496] [7 Regression] Missed opportunities for jump threading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8 Regression] Missed |[7 Regression] Missed

[Bug tree-optimization/78496] [7/8 Regression] Missed opportunities for jump threading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78496 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Mon Dec 4 16:14:24 2017 New Revision: 255387 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255387=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimizatin/78496 * gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.h

[Bug rtl-optimization/83272] New: Unnecessary mask instruction generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83272 Bug ID: 83272 Summary: Unnecessary mask instruction generated Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/82096] ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:403 with arm-linux-gnueabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82096 Vidya Praveen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/83271] const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c/83236] "Did you mean" suggestions maybe shouldn't offer implementation-private names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83236 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Zack Weinberg from comment #3) > Maybe name_reserved_for_implementation_p should be a langhook? I'm only using it in the C/C++ frontends, and the implementation is identical for both, so I

[Bug c++/68810] [8 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-reinterpret1.C -- test for errors -- -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810 --- Comment #18 from David Malcolm --- ...but presumably a question here is "what is the ideal output of the compiler for that code?", and the answer might be: constexpr-reinterpret1.C:19:??: error: reinterpret_cast from integer to pointer {

[Bug c++/68810] [8 regression] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-reinterpret1.C -- test for errors -- -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68810 --- Comment #17 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #16) > David, does your patchset solve this? The v2 version of the kit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg00880.html doesn't affect it. The

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 > > --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 42785 > -->

[Bug c++/83271] New: const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83271 Bug ID: 83271 Summary: const variable previously declared "extern" results in "weak declaration must be public" error Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42785 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42785=edit gcc8-pr81281-test.patch This was fixed by r251651 for -fsanitize=undefined. Attaching testcase in patch form. That

[Bug libgomp/83270] [OMP 3.1] implement TASKYIELD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83270 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|wrong-code | --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---

[Bug libgomp/83270] New: [OMP 3.1] implement TASKYIELD

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83270 Bug ID: 83270 Summary: [OMP 3.1] implement TASKYIELD Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgomp

  1   2   3   >