[Bug lto/82598] New: lto debugobj lacks .note.GNU-stack

[amodra at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82598

Bug ID: 82598
   Summary: lto debugobj lacks .note.GNU-stack
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: lto
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: amodra at gmail dot com
CC: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Lack of a .note.GNU-stack section results in ld testsuite failures:

arm-linuxeabi  FAIL: PR ld/12982
hppa-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982
m68k-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982
powerpc-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982
s390-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982
s390x-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982
sparc64-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982
x86_64-linux  FAIL: PR ld/12982

Reproducible with -g -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin on
int main () { return 0; }

readelf -l a.out

[Bug libstdc++/81797] gcc 7.1.0 fails to build on macOS 10.13 (High Sierra):

[rlcamp.pdx at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797

Campbell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rlcamp.pdx at gmail dot com

--- Comment #21 from Campbell  ---
I can confirm that this affects the latest gcc-8 snapshot (20170715) on High
Sierra with an APFS encrypted volume, and that adding ".NOTPARALLEL: allcreated
install-headers install-freestanding-headers" to
libstdc++-v3/include/Makefile.in resolves it.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82597] New: ICE at -O2 and -O3 x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit mode: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2207

[su at cs dot ucdavis.edu]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82597

Bug ID: 82597
   Summary: ICE at -O2 and -O3 x86_64-linux-gnu in the 32-bit
mode: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2207
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: rtl-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
  Target Milestone: ---

$ gcctk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcctk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171018 (experimental) [trunk revision 253840] (GCC) 
$ 
$ gcctk -m32 -Os -c -w small.c
$ 
$ gcctk -m32 -O2 -c -w small.c
small.c: In function ‘l’:
small.c:7:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
 void l () { j (); }
 ^~~~
(insn 56 8 10 2 (parallel [
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (plus:SI (reg:SI 2 cx [orig:88 _3 ] [88])
(const_int 1 [0x1]))
(const_int 0 [0])))
(set (reg/v:SI 0 ax [orig:91 k ] [91])
(plus:SI (reg:SI 2 cx [orig:88 _3 ] [88])
(const_int 1 [0x1])))
]) "small.c":6 225 {*addsi_2}
 (nil))
during RTL pass: pro_and_epilogue
small.c:7:1: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2207
0x5fbe80 _fatal_insn(char const*, rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char
const*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/rtl-error.c:108
0x5fbea6 _fatal_insn_not_found(rtx_def const*, char const*, int, char const*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/rtl-error.c:119
0xbc9ead extract_constrain_insn(rtx_insn*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/recog.c:2207
0xbd33b6 copyprop_hardreg_forward_1
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/regcprop.c:794
0xbd478e copyprop_hardreg_forward_bb_without_debug_insn(basic_block_def*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/regcprop.c:1173
0xc39a03 prepare_shrink_wrap
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/shrink-wrap.c:443
0xc39a03 try_shrink_wrapping(edge_def**, rtx_insn*)
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/shrink-wrap.c:667
0x983fbc thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns()
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/function.c:6003
0x9847f2 rest_of_handle_thread_prologue_and_epilogue
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/function.c:6488
0x9847f2 execute
../../gcc-source-trunk/gcc/function.c:6530
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See  for instructions.
$ 


-


unsigned b, c, e, g;

int a (h, i) { return h > 0 && i ? : h + i; }
int d (int h, int i) { return h; }
long long f (long h, long long i) { return h + i; }
void j () { long k = f (d (1, e = c), g); a (k) && (b = 0); }
void l () { j (); }

[Bug tree-optimization/82588] missing -Warray-bounds on a excessively large index

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82588

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||patch

--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor  ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01122.html

[Bug tree-optimization/82596] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into string literal

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82596

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||patch

--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor  ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01122.html

[Bug tree-optimization/82583] missing -Warray-bounds on out-of-bounds inner indices

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82583

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||patch

--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor  ---
Patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01122.html

[Bug middle-end/82556] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4307

[vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556

--- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov  ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> Indeed started with my r253710.  If there is something wrong on the
> constraints on the patterns, please let me know.

The constraints are ok.  I'll probably have and submit the LRA patch tomorrow.

[Bug target/82582] not quite optimal code for -2*x*y - 3*z: could use one less LEA for smaller code without increasing critical path latency for any input

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82582

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
For AARCH64 the correct thing is able to be produced:
foo32:
sub w2, w2, w2, lsl 2 ; w2 = z - z<<2; (rather -z*3)
neg w0, w0, lsl 1 ; w0 = x * -2
maddw0, w0, w1, w2; res = w0 * y + w2
ret

[Bug tree-optimization/82596] missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into string literal

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82596

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||diagnostic
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-18
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |msebor at gcc dot 
gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor  ---
I'm testing a patch for this and a couple of the other -Warray-bounds bugs I
reported today (pr82588 and pr82583).

[Bug tree-optimization/82583] missing -Warray-bounds on out-of-bounds inner indices

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82583

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-18
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |msebor at gcc dot 
gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor  ---
Testing a fix.

[Bug tree-optimization/82588] missing -Warray-bounds on a excessively large index

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82588

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-18
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |msebor at gcc dot 
gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor  ---
Testing a fix.

[Bug tree-optimization/82596] New: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into string literal

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82596

Bug ID: 82596
   Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on an out-of-bounds index into
string literal
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

The program below compiles successfully with no warnings despite the references
using out-of-bounds indices into the string literals.

$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -Warray-bounds a.c
#define ABC "abc"
#define DEF "def"

int f (int i)
{
  if (i < 0)
return ABC[7];   // missing -Warray-bounds
  else
return DEF[7];   // missing -Warray-bounds
}

int g (int i)
{
  return (i < 0 ? ABC : DEF)[7];   // missing -Warray-bounds
}


In contrast to GCC, Clang emits the expected warnings:

a.c:7:12: error: array index 7 is past the end of the array (which contains 4
elements) [-Werror,-Warray-bounds]
return ABC[7];
   ^   ~
a.c:1:13: note: expanded from macro 'ABC'
#define ABC "abc"
^
a.c:9:12: error: array index 7 is past the end of the array (which contains 4
elements) [-Werror,-Warray-bounds]
return DEF[7];
   ^   ~
a.c:2:13: note: expanded from macro 'DEF'
#define DEF "def"
^
a.c:14:11: error: array index 7 is past the end of the array (which contains 4
elements) [-Werror,-Warray-bounds]
  return (i < 0 ? ABC : DEF)[7];
  ^  ~
3 errors generated.

[Bug sanitizer/82595] bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Looks like:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01043.html

is no longer part of the sources due to the last merge.

[Bug sanitizer/82595] New: bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82595

Bug ID: 82595
   Summary: bootstrap fails in libsanitizer on
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Keywords: build
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: sanitizer
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org,
jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at 
gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---
  Host: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
Target: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
 Build: powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

Hi, I recently got access to the gcc compile farm, so I logged into gcc110 and
tried bootstrapping gcc, but it failed in libsanitizer with:

/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CXX   --mode=link /home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc/xgcc
-shared-libgcc -B/home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include-Wall -W
-Wno-unused-parameter -Wwrite-strings -pedantic -Wno-long-long -fPIC
-fno-builtin -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -fomit-frame-pointer -funwind-tables
-fvisibility=hidden -Wno-variadic-macros -I../../libstdc++-v3/include
-I../../libstdc++-v3/include/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
-I../../../../libsanitizer/../libstdc++-v3/libsupc++ -std=gnu++11 -g -O2
-D_GNU_SOURCE -g -Os -version-info `grep -v '^#'
../../../../libsanitizer/lsan/libtool-version` -ldl -lrt -lpthread -lm  -o
liblsan.la -rpath /usr/local/lib/../lib64 lsan_common.lo lsan_common_linux.lo
lsan.lo lsan_allocator.lo lsan_interceptors.lo lsan_preinit.lo lsan_thread.lo
../sanitizer_common/libsanitizer_common.la ../interception/libinterception.la
../libbacktrace/libsanitizer_libbacktrace.la
../../libstdc++-v3/src/libstdc++.la 
libtool: link:  /home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc -nostdinc++
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/sys-include -fPIC -DPIC -shared
-nostdlib /lib/../lib64/crti.o /home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc/crtbeginS.o 
.libs/lsan_common.o .libs/lsan_common_linux.o .libs/lsan.o
.libs/lsan_allocator.o .libs/lsan_interceptors.o .libs/lsan_preinit.o
.libs/lsan_thread.o  -Wl,--whole-archive
../sanitizer_common/.libs/libsanitizer_common.a
../interception/.libs/libinterception.a
../libbacktrace/.libs/libsanitizer_libbacktrace.a -Wl,--no-whole-archive 
-Wl,-rpath
-Wl,/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-Wl,-rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib/../lib64
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/.libs
-ldl -lrt -lpthread ../../libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/libstdc++.so -lm
-L/home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc -L/lib/../lib64 -L/usr/lib/../lib64 -lc
-lgcc_s /home/egallager/gcc/build/./gcc/crtendS.o /lib/../lib64/crtn.o   
-Wl,-soname -Wl,liblsan.so.0 -o .libs/liblsan.so.0.0.0
/usr/bin/ld: .libs/lsan_preinit.o: .preinit_array section is not allowed in DSO
/usr/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: Nonrepresentable section on
output
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[4]: *** [liblsan.la] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory
`/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libsanitizer/lsan'
make[3]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libsanitizer'
make[2]: *** [all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/home/egallager/gcc/build/powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu/libsanitizer'
make[1]: *** [all-target-libsanitizer] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/egallager/gcc/build'
make: *** [all] Error 2

/usr/bin/ld --version says:
[egallager@gcc1-power7 build]$ /usr/bin/ld --version
GNU ld version 2.25.1-32.base.el7_4.1 
Copyright (C) 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of
the GNU General Public License version 3 or (at your option) a 

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

[ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569

Eric Botcazou  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |ebotcazou at gcc dot 
gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou  ---
> This is a cut down single function test case that shows the problem.  I
> tried cutting out more but it changed how the code was generated too much to
> show the issue.
> 
> Compile it with a powerpc compiler built with -mcpu=power6 or power6x
> 
> ~/gcc/install/gcc-test2/bin/gcc -O3 -S -o bad.s bad.c

I can reproduce, thanks.

[Bug c++/82594] Please provide better parameter / argument mismatch warnings/notes

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82594

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||diagnostic
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
Version|unknown |7.2.0
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
   Severity|normal  |enhancement

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
So if there are more than one overloads, the C++ front-end produces:
t88.c: In function 'void initialize()':
t88.c:13:35: error: no matching function for call to 'set_delete_thread(void
(&)(S2*))'
   set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
   ^
t88.c:5:6: note: candidate: void set_delete_thread(S1*, void (*)(S2*))
 void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *, void (*) (struct S2 *));
  ^
t88.c:5:6: note:   candidate expects 2 arguments, 1 provided
t88.c:6:6: note: candidate: void set_delete_thread(S1*)
 void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *);
  ^
t88.c:6:6: note:   no known conversion for argument 1 from 'void(S2*)' to 'S1*'


But with only one overload, GCC produces:
t88.c: In function 'void initialize()':
t88.c:13:35: error: cannot convert 'void (*)(S2*)' to 'S1*' for argument '1' to
'void set_delete_thread(S1*, void (*)(S2*))'
   set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
   ^


I do think the C++ front-end's case with one overload set is actually can be
improved.

Note the C front-end produces:
t88.c: In function 'initialize':
t88.c:13:22: warning: passing argument 1 of 'set_delete_thread' from
incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
   set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
  ^
t88.c:5:6: note: expected 'struct S1 *' but argument is of type 'void
(*)(struct S2 *)'
 void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *, void (*) (struct S2 *));
  ^
t88.c:13:3: error: too few arguments to function 'set_delete_thread'
   set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
   ^
t88.c:5:6: note: declared here
 void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *, void (*) (struct S2 *));
  ^

[Bug c++/82594] New: Please provide better parameter / argument mismatch warnings/notes

[palves at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82594

Bug ID: 82594
   Summary: Please provide better parameter / argument mismatch
warnings/notes
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c++
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: palves at redhat dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

While working on GDB, I came across a case where I wish GCC's diagnostics could
have spared me a few greps.  Here, reduced:

~~~
struct S1;
struct S2;

/* Declared in some header.  */
void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *, void (*) (struct S2 *));

/* Declared in some other header.  */
void delete_thread (struct S2 *);

void initialize ()
{
  set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
}
~~~

For simplicity, above 'set_delete_thread' and 'delete_thread' are 'initialize'
are all declared/defined in the same translation unit.  But please assume that
they're declared in separate headers, as indicated by the comments, and that
you don't really know by heart which headers those are.

Compiling the above, we get, with current trunk (gcc version 8.0.0 20171017):

~~~
$ /opt/gcc/bin/g++ mismatch.cc -c -o mismatch
mismatch.cc: In function ‘void initialize()’:
mismatch.cc:12:35: error: cannot convert ‘void (*)(S2*)’ to ‘S1*’ for argument
‘1’ to ‘void set_delete_thread(S1*, void (*)(S2*))’
   set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
   ^
~~~

What I wish GCC would do is print a couple notes showing where are
delete_thread [the argument] and set_delete_thread [the called function]
defined.  Something like:

~~
foo.h:4:5: note: ‘set_delete_thread’ declared here
 void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *, void (*) (struct S2 *));

nat/bar.h:10:5: note: ‘delete_thread’ declared here
 void delete_thread (struct S2 *);
~~

And likely another note for where S1 is declared too.


For reference here's what clang 3.7 shows:
~~~
$ clang++ mismatch.cc -c -o mismatch
mismatch.cc:12:3: error: no matching function for call to 'set_delete_thread'
  set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
  ^
mismatch.cc:5:6: note: candidate function not viable: requires 2 arguments, but
1 was provided
void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *, void (*) (struct S2 *));
 ^
1 error generated.
~~~

If you remove the second parameter of set_delete_thread so that the number of
arguments matches the number of parameters, we get instead (with clang):


mismatch.cc:12:3: error: no matching function for call to 'set_delete_thread'
  set_delete_thread (delete_thread);
  ^
mismatch.cc:5:6: note: candidate function not viable: no known conversion from
'void (struct S2 *)' to 'struct S1 *' for 1st argument
void set_delete_thread (struct S1 *);
 ^


I've found these clang "note: candidate function not viable" notes quite useful
to see before, particularly when working with template code relying heavily on
SFINAE.  Maybe GCC could combine the best of both worlds and also consider my
suggestion.

Hey, asking is cheap.  :-)

[Bug middle-end/82556] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4307

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Indeed started with my r253710.  If there is something wrong on the constraints
on the patterns, please let me know.

[Bug c++/82593] Internal compiler error: in process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1294

[ao2 at ao2 dot it]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82593

--- Comment #1 from Antonio Ospite  ---
Created attachment 42387
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42387=edit
Parenthesized array member initializer with enum as indices

Adding a more concise test program.

Using an array of scalar values instead of an array of structs also gives the
ICE, this time with a nice warning:

---
$ g++ -c parenthesized_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp 
parenthesized_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp: In constructor
‘SomeClass::SomeClass()’:
parenthesized_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp:17:3: warning:
list-initializer for non-class type must not be parenthesized
  })
   ^
parenthesized_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp:17:3: internal compiler
error: in process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1294
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See  for instructions.
---

[Bug c++/82593] New: Internal compiler error: in process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1294

[ao2 at ao2 dot it]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82593

Bug ID: 82593
   Summary: Internal compiler error: in
process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1294
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: c++
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: ao2 at ao2 dot it
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 42386
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42386=edit
Parenthesized struct array memeber initializer with enum as indices

Hi,

I get an "internal compiler error" with the attached code.

The problem shows up with both g++-6 and g++-7 from Debian unstable:

---
$ g++ -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/7/lto-wrapper
OFFLOAD_TARGET_NAMES=nvptx-none
OFFLOAD_TARGET_DEFAULT=1
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 7.2.0-10'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-7/README.Bugs
--enable-languages=c,ada,c++,go,brig,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr
--with-gcc-major-version-only --program-suffix=-7
--program-prefix=x86_64-linux-gnu- --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix
--libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu
--enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=new --enable-gnu-unique-object
--disable-vtable-verify --enable-libmpx --enable-plugin --enable-default-pie
--with-system-zlib --with-target-system-zlib --enable-objc-gc=auto
--enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64
--with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --enable-multilib --with-tune=generic
--enable-offload-targets=nvptx-none --without-cuda-driver
--enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu
--target=x86_64-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 7.2.1 20171014 (Debian 7.2.0-10) 
---


---
$ g++-6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=g++-6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/6/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Debian 6.4.0-8'
--with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-6/README.Bugs
--enable-languages=c,ada,c++,java,go,d,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr
--program-suffix=-6 --program-prefix=x86_64-linux-gnu- --enable-shared
--enable-linker-build-id --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext
--enable-threads=posix --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/
--enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes
--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=new --enable-gnu-unique-object
--disable-vtable-verify --enable-libmpx --enable-plugin --enable-default-pie
--with-system-zlib --disable-browser-plugin --enable-java-awt=gtk
--enable-gtk-cairo --with-java-home=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-6-amd64/jre
--enable-java-home --with-jvm-root-dir=/usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-gcj-6-amd64
--with-jvm-jar-dir=/usr/lib/jvm-exports/java-1.5.0-gcj-6-amd64
--with-arch-directory=amd64 --with-ecj-jar=/usr/share/java/eclipse-ecj.jar
--with-target-system-zlib --enable-objc-gc=auto --enable-multiarch
--with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32
--enable-multilib --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release
--build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu
Thread model: posix
gcc version 6.4.0 20171010 (Debian 6.4.0-8) 
---


Compiling with no extra options gives the ICE:

---
$ g++ -c parenthesized_struct_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp 
parenthesized_struct_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp: In constructor
‘SomeClass::SomeClass()’:
parenthesized_struct_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp:17:3: internal
compiler error: in process_init_constructor_array, at cp/typeck2.c:1294
  })
   ^
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See  for instructions.
---


AFAICS the bug is triggered when using *enum* values as indices AND the array
member initializer uses parentheses.

The use of parentheses seems to be a GNU extension, as clang++ also points
out:

---
$ clang++-4.0 -std=c++11 -c
parenthesized_struct_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp 
parenthesized_struct_array_initializer_with_enum_indices.cpp:14:4: error:
parenthesized initialization of a member array is a GNU extension
  [-Wgnu-array-member-paren-init]
 : member({
   ^  ~
1 error 

[Bug libstdc++/82554] uniform_real_distribution can generate the upper endpoint

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82554

--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
Almost all of it is saying things you *don't need to do*.

You just need to send an email.

[Bug web/66802] Some of the Bugzilla Bug fields descriptions do not reflect GCC development

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66802

Jonathan Wakely  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Last reconfirmed|2015-07-08 00:00:00 |2017-10-17

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely  ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status

We don't have CONFIRMED or IN_PROGRESS statuses, we have NEW and ASSIGNED.

We don't have VERIFIED, we have CLOSED, but the mention of QA in the
description is misplaced (there is no QA team for GCC).

We also have SUSPENDED and WAITING.

[Bug fortran/82589] ICE in gfc_get_pdt_instance, at fortran/decl.c:3278

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed on trunk (8.0).

[Bug fortran/82587] ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82587

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed on trunk (8.0).

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus warning when inlining or unrolling: "array subscript is above array bounds"

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456

Eric Gallager  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager  ---
How essential is the "when inlining or unrolling" portion of the title for this
bug? i.e., can it be used as a meta-bug for all -Warray-bounds issues? If not,
how to tell if any given -Warray-bounds bug is related to inlining/unrolling or
not?

[Bug debug/58150] debug info about definition of enum class not emitted if the declaration was already used in a class

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58150

Eric Gallager  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager  ---
(In reply to npl from comment #2)
> Created attachment 42381 [details]
> another testcase
> 
> I was generating a testcase before discovering this bug.
> Problem is the same:
> 
> A class/struct using a prototyped, not yet defined "enum class" will prevent
> that debug information for this "enum class" to be emitted.
> Only if no class/struct uses a "enum class" before its defined, the debug
> info will be available.
> 
> Affected: GCC 5.3.0, GCC 6.4.0, GCC 7.2.0
> 
> Please fix this, it really makes debugging a pain

Taking this as confirmation.

[Bug c/82542] -fdump-lang-raw (formerly -fdump-translation-unit) no longer available for C

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542

--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager  ---
(In reply to Ben Longbons from comment #9)
> The ones I've filed are: #54533, #58150, #80466
> 
> But there are quite a few more at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__=debug_id=190134=gcc

If you type "bug" in front of them bugzilla will auto-link them:
bug 54533, bug 58150, bug 80466

[Bug debug/43119] debug info vs. scheduling

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43119

Eric Gallager  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

[Bug c++/64611] Using a << operator inside an overloaded << operator gives compile error

[jvoosten at bankai dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611

J. van Oosten  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED

--- Comment #9 from J. van Oosten  ---
thus closing it.

[Bug c++/64611] Using a << operator inside an overloaded << operator gives compile error

[jvoosten at bankai dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611

--- Comment #8 from J. van Oosten  ---
Confirmed it works as expected with GCC 5.4.0

[Bug target/82592] New: [8 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2207 (error: insn does not satisfy its constraints)

[asolokha at gmx dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82592

Bug ID: 82592
   Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2207 (error: insn does not satisfy its
constraints)
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
  Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

gcc-8.0.0-alpha20171015 snapshot (r253772) ICEs when compiling the following
snippet w/ -O2 (-O3, -Ofast) -funroll-loops:

int pb;

void
ch (unsigned char np, char fc)
{
  unsigned char *y6 = 

  if (fc != 0)
{
  unsigned char *z1 = 

  for (;;)
if (*y6 != 0)
  for (fc = 0; fc < 12; ++fc)
{
  int hh;
  int tp;

  if (fc != 0)
hh = (*z1 != 0) ? fc : 0;
  else
hh = pb;

  tp = fc > 0;
  if (hh == tp)
*y6 = 1;
}
}

  if (np != 0)
y6 = (unsigned char *)
  if (pb != 0 && *y6 != 0)
for (;;)
  {
  }
}

% x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc-8.0.0-alpha20171015 -O2 -funroll-loops -c
id5cyx54.c
id5cyx54.c: In function 'ch':
id5cyx54.c:36:1: error: insn does not satisfy its constraints:
 }
 ^
(insn 565 340 357 42 (parallel [
(set (reg:CCZ 17 flags)
(compare:CCZ (plus:SI (reg:SI 2 cx [120])
(const_int 2 [0x2]))
(const_int 0 [0])))
(set (reg:SI 1 dx [orig:91 ivtmp.14 ] [91])
(plus:SI (reg:SI 2 cx [120])
(const_int 2 [0x2])))
]) 225 {*addsi_2}
 (nil))
during RTL pass: rnreg
id5cyx54.c:36:1: internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at
recog.c:2207

[Bug c++/58601] [meta-bug] alignas

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58601
Bug 58601 depends on bug 71821, which changed state.

Bug 71821 Summary: [6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid C++11 code (incorrect 
argument for alignas): unexpected expression ‘f’ of kind template_id_expr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71821

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug c++/71821] [6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid C++11 code (incorrect argument for alignas): unexpected expression ‘f’ of kind template_id_expr

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71821

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
   Target Milestone|6.5 |7.0

--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini  ---
Given that this is only an ICE on invalid, I think at this time we can close it
as fixed for 7.1.0.

[Bug c++/71821] [6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid C++11 code (incorrect argument for alignas): unexpected expression ‘f’ of kind template_id_expr

[paolo at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71821

--- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org  ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 17 19:49:06 2017
New Revision: 253828

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253828=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-17  Paolo Carlini  

PR c++/71821
* g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas12.C: New.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/alignas12.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug c++/71368] [concepts] ICE on constrained compound requirement

[paolo at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71368

--- Comment #1 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org  ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 17 19:36:49 2017
New Revision: 253826

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253826=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-17  Paolo Carlini  

PR c++/71368
* g++.dg/concepts/pr71368.C: New.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/concepts/pr71368.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug c++/71368] [concepts] ICE on constrained compound requirement

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71368

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |6.2

--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini  ---
Fixed in 6.2.0.

[Bug c++/71251] [6/7/8 regression] ICE on invalid code, with unusual template name

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71251

--- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini  ---
Related to PR71220.

[Bug c++/82478] Rejects valid access to private member type that should be allowed by friend

[eieio at google dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82478

--- Comment #4 from Corey Tabaka  ---
Ah, you are right. Late night mixup...

The outer class friend should work though, correct?

[Bug c++/70377] "unexpected AST" and "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" from throw in simple constexpr fn

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70377

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c++/70377] "unexpected AST" and "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" from throw in simple constexpr fn

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70377

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini  ---
Ok, I think we can close this one (about the ICE) as fixed for 6.1.0.

[Bug c++/67735] internal compiler error while trying to use __direct_bases to create parallel hierarchy of classes

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67735

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

[Bug c++/65970] [C++14] Endless loop with constexpr

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65970

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 CC|jason at gcc dot gnu.org   |
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |7.0

--- Comment #4 from Paolo Carlini  ---
We can resolve this as fixed in 7.1.0, I believe.

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569

--- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 42385
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42385=edit
test case that shows the problem

This is a cut down single function test case that shows the problem.  I tried
cutting out more but it changed how the code was generated too much to show the
issue.

Compile it with a powerpc compiler built with -mcpu=power6 or power6x

~/gcc/install/gcc-test2/bin/gcc -O3 -S -o bad.s bad.c

And look for the srawi that shifts by 13.  I changed it from 11 to make it
easier to find because there are other shifts by 11.  Then trace the result on
its way to the function call.

I see:

303:srawi 10,31,13

305:stw 10,29148(1)

325:ld 16,29144(1)

332:mr 27,16

545:mr 6,27
546:bl gl_write_texture_span

[Bug c++/64611] Using a << operator inside an overloaded << operator gives compile error

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64611

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
   Target Milestone|--- |5.0

--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini  ---
Fixed looong time ago, in 5.1.0.

[Bug tree-optimization/82591] New: [8 Regression] [graphite] Compile-time hog w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize

[asolokha at gmx dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82591

Bug ID: 82591
   Summary: [8 Regression] [graphite] Compile-time hog w/ -O2
-floop-nest-optimize
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Keywords: compile-time-hog
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

gcc-8.0.0-alpha20171015 snapshot (r253772) takes about 25 s to compile the
following snippet w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize on my machine:

unsigned int dd;

unsigned int
hi (unsigned int s1, int w0, int ym, unsigned short int oy)
{
  int *v1;

  if (w0 == 0)
v1 = 
  else
{
  int *fr;

  v1 = 

  for (w0 = 0; w0 < 128; ++w0)
{
  int r8;

  for (r8 = 0; r8 < 3; ++r8)
{
  fr = (int *)
  oy -= 0x201;
  s1 = oy <= 1;
  ym += dd;
  if (s1 != 0)
{
  int x8;

  *fr = 0;
  x8 = ym / *fr;
}
}
}
}

  if (s1 == (((*v1 != 0) ? s1 : 0) - (1 / 0)))
s1 = 0;

  return s1;
}

% time gcc-8.0.0-alpha20171015 -O2 -floop-nest-optimize -w -c yaqk7feq.c
gcc-8.0.0-alpha20171015 -O2 -floop-nest-optimize -w -c yaqk7feq.c  21.80s user
0.02s system 92% cpu 23.709 total

On this machine I have gmp 6.1.2 and isl 0.18 installed.

9.37%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_divexact
9.16%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_mul
8.06%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_tab_pivot
7.62%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_aorsmul_1
7.59%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_gcd_1
5.28%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_modexact_1_odd
5.17%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_divexact_1
4.51%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_cmpabs
4.27%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_mul_1
4.26%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_gcd
2.75%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_divexact
2.66%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_seq_gcd
2.53%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_seq_abs_min_non_zero
2.05%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_cmp_ui
1.91%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_addmul
1.31%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_gcd
1.25%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_copyi
1.04%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_seq_scale_down
0.91%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_submul_1
0.77%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_tab_var_from_row
0.69%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpz_set
0.64%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_tab_row_is_redundant
0.50%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] 0x0005a3fd
0.42%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_addmul_1
0.39%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] 0x0005a3f0
0.38%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] 0x0005a5e3
0.35%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_divexact@plt
0.35%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] __gmpn_rshift
0.32%  libgmp.so.10.3.2  [.] 0x0005a254
0.32%  libc-2.25.so  [.] _int_malloc
0.31%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_seq_normalize
0.30%  libisl.so.15.3.0  [.] isl_seq_combine

[Bug other/82590] New: auto-host.h error: declaration does not declare anything

[bastl at eclipso dot de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82590

Bug ID: 82590
   Summary: auto-host.h error: declaration does not declare
anything
   Product: gcc
   Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: other
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: bastl at eclipso dot de
  Target Milestone: ---

Compiling GCC-7.2.0 with:

gcc (GCC) 6.3.0
libtool (GNU libtool) 2.4.6
GNU Make 4.2.1
GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.29
GNU Awk 4.1.4
perl 5, version 26, subversion 0 (v5.26.0)
bison (GNU Bison) 3.0.4
ldd (GNU libc) 2.26
GNU bash, version 4.4.12(2)-release

on and for:

i686-pc-linux-gnu

breaks with this error (./gcc):

checking for strings.h... yes
checking for inttypes.h... In file included from /usr/include/stdlib.h:707:0,
 from /mnt/usb6/prog/7.91_gcc-7/gcc-7.2.0/./gcc/system.h:258,
 from /mnt/usb6/prog/7.91_gcc-7/gcc-7.2.0/./gcc/genhooks.c:21:
/usr/include/bits/stdlib-bsearch.h: In function 'void* bsearch(const void*,
const void*, size_t, size_t, __compar_fn_t)':
/usr/include/bits/stdlib-bsearch.h:32:65: warning: cast from type 'const char*'
to type 'void*' casts away qualifiers [-Wcast-qual]
   __p = (void *) (((const char *) __base) + (__idx * __size));
 ^
/usr/include/bits/stdlib-bsearch.h:39:18: warning: cast from type 'const void*'
to type 'void*' casts away qualifiers [-Wcast-qual]
  return (void *) __p;
  ^~~
In file included from /usr/include/bits/fcntl.h:61:0,
 from /usr/include/fcntl.h:35,
 from /mnt/usb6/prog/7.91_gcc-7/gcc-7.2.0/./gcc/system.h:349,
 from /mnt/usb6/prog/7.91_gcc-7/gcc-7.2.0/./gcc/genhooks.c:21:
/usr/include/bits/fcntl-linux.h: At global scope:
/usr/include/bits/fcntl-linux.h:330:27: warning: ISO C++ forbids zero-size
array 'f_handle' [-Wpedantic]
   unsigned char f_handle[0];
   ^
In file included from ./bconfig.h:3:0,
 from /mnt/usb6/prog/7.91_gcc-7/gcc-7.2.0/./gcc/genhooks.c:20:
./auto-host.h:2357:16: error: declaration does not declare anything
[-fpermissive]
 #define rlim_t long
^
/usr/include/bits/resource.h:133:20: note: in expansion of macro 'rlim_t'
 typedef __rlim64_t rlim_t;

[Bug fortran/82586] ICE: write_symbol(): bad module symbol

[pault at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586

Paul Thomas  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |pault at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas  ---
Thanks - they are now on the todo list :-)

Paul

[Bug libstdc++/82554] uniform_real_distribution can generate the upper endpoint

[b.r.longbons at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82554

--- Comment #3 from Ben Longbons  ---
There is DR2524 for the [0, 1) case. Otherwise, filing bugs there looks really
complicated.

I've given you a reproducer. That's as much as I'm capable of.

[Bug c/82542] -fdump-lang-raw (formerly -fdump-translation-unit) no longer available for C

[b.r.longbons at gmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82542

--- Comment #9 from Ben Longbons  ---
The ones I've filed are: #54533, #58150, #80466

But there are quite a few more at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__=debug_id=190134=gcc

[Bug fortran/82589] ICE in gfc_get_pdt_instance, at fortran/decl.c:3278

[gs...@t-online.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589

--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz  ---

These variants are processed without any complaints :


$ cat z2.f90
module m
   type t(a)
  integer, len, private :: a
   end type
end
program p
   use m
   type(t(:)), allocatable :: x
   print *, x
end


$ cat z3.f90
module m
   type t(a)
  integer, len, private :: a
   end type
end
program p
   use m
   type(t(2)) :: x
   print *, x
end


$ gfortran-8-20171015 -g -O0 -Wall -Wextra -c z2.f90
$ gfortran-8-20171015 -g -O0 -Wall -Wextra -c z3.f90
$

[Bug fortran/82589] New: ICE in gfc_get_pdt_instance, at fortran/decl.c:3278

[gs...@t-online.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82589

Bug ID: 82589
   Summary: ICE in gfc_get_pdt_instance, at fortran/decl.c:3278
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: fortran
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: gs...@t-online.de
  Target Milestone: ---

A combination of type-param-attr-spec LEN or KIND with another 
attribute like PRIVATE conflicts with f2008 4.5.3.1 :


$ cat z1.f90
module m
   type t(a)
  integer, len, private :: a
   end type
end
program p
   use m
   type(t(a=:)), allocatable :: x
   print *, x
end


$ gfortran-8-20171015 -c z1.f90
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xb5a08f crash_signal
../../gcc/toplev.c:326
0x67a008 gfc_get_pdt_instance(gfc_actual_arglist*, gfc_symbol**,
gfc_actual_arglist**)
../../gcc/fortran/decl.c:3278
0x680221 gfc_match_decl_type_spec(gfc_typespec*, int)
../../gcc/fortran/decl.c:3787
0x68115c gfc_match_data_decl()
../../gcc/fortran/decl.c:5605
0x6dbac9 match_word_omp_simd
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:93
0x6df17e match_word
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:376
0x6df17e decode_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:376
0x6e0fb4 next_free
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:1225
0x6e0fb4 next_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:1457
0x6e289c parse_spec
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:3831
0x6e4d93 parse_progunit
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:5634
0x6e6354 gfc_parse_file()
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:6174
0x72a6bf gfc_be_parse_file
../../gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:204

[Bug tree-optimization/82588] missing -Warray-bounds on a excessively large index

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82588

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
   ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=68325

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor  ---
See also bug 68325 for a similar report of -Warray-bounds failing to detect
negative indices into flexible array members.

[Bug tree-optimization/82588] New: missing -Warray-bounds on a excessively large index

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82588

Bug ID: 82588
   Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on a excessively large index
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

GCC fails to issue a -Warray-bounds warning for indices so large that they
cannot be valid even for the largest objects.

In function f0() below, GCC recognizes that the signed distance between the
beginning of the array and the end pointer cannot be positive and transforms
the function into an unconditional call to abort, but it doesn't issue any sort
of a diagnostic.  -Warray-bounds would seem to be appropriate here.  Likewise
in function f1().

Similarly in function f2(), the size of the member array cannot be half the
address space because it would leave no room for the remaining members of the
same struct.  So again, -Warray-bounds could be issued for this pathological
case.  The comment in check_array_ref that reads "Can not check flexible
arrays." indicates the absence of checking for flexible array members is
intentional, but it can be tightened up to detect these boundary conditions.

$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -Warray-bounds -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/stdout
a.c 
struct A { int n; char a[]; };

void f0 (void)
{
  extern int a[];

  int *e = a + __SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof (int) + 1;   // missing warning

  if (e - a <= 0)
__builtin_abort ();
}

int f1 (void)
{
  extern int a[];

  return a[__SIZE_MAX__ / sizeof (int) + 1];   // missing -Warray-bounds
}

int f2 (struct A *a)
{
  return a->a[__SIZE_MAX__ / 2];   // missing -Warray-bounds
}

;; Function f0 (f0, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1834, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=0)
(unlikely executed)

f0 ()
{
   [100.00%] [count: 0]:
  __builtin_abort ();

}



;; Function f1 (f1, funcdef_no=1, decl_uid=1840, cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order=1)

f1 ()
{
  int _2;

   [100.00%] [count: INV]:
  _2 = a[4611686018427387904];
  return _2;

}



;; Function f2 (f2, funcdef_no=2, decl_uid=1845, cgraph_uid=2, symbol_order=2)

f2 (struct A * a)
{
  char _1;
  int _4;

   [100.00%] [count: INV]:
  _1 = a_3(D)->a[9223372036854775807];
  _4 = (int) _1;
  return _4;

}

[Bug fortran/82587] New: ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185

[gs...@t-online.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82587

Bug ID: 82587
   Summary: ICE in get_pdt_constructor, at fortran/resolve.c:1185
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: fortran
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: gs...@t-online.de
  Target Milestone: ---

Another piece of invalid code :


$ cat z1.f90
program p
   type t(a)
  integer(kind=t()) :: x
   end type
end


$ gfortran-8-20171015 -c z1.f90
f951: internal compiler error: in get_pdt_constructor, at
fortran/resolve.c:1185
0x6ed6e5 get_pdt_constructor
../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:1185
0x7037be resolve_structure_cons
../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:1247
0x6f31ba resolve_generic_f
../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:2697
0x6f31ba resolve_function
../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:3120
0x6f350a gfc_resolve_expr(gfc_expr*)
../../gcc/fortran/resolve.c:6608
0x6916ef gfc_reduce_init_expr(gfc_expr*)
../../gcc/fortran/expr.c:2696
0x6940d1 gfc_match_init_expr(gfc_expr**)
../../gcc/fortran/expr.c:2744
0x679605 gfc_match_kind_spec(gfc_typespec*, bool)
../../gcc/fortran/decl.c:2710
0x67faa2 gfc_match_decl_type_spec(gfc_typespec*, int)
../../gcc/fortran/decl.c:4053
0x68115c gfc_match_data_decl()
../../gcc/fortran/decl.c:5605
0x6dbac9 match_word_omp_simd
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:93
0x6df17e match_word
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:376
0x6df17e decode_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:376
0x6e0fb4 next_free
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:1225
0x6e0fb4 next_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:1457
0x6e252d parse_derived
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:3252
0x6e252d parse_spec
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:3792
0x6e4d93 parse_progunit
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:5634
0x6e6354 gfc_parse_file()
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:6174
0x72a6bf gfc_be_parse_file
../../gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:204

[Bug c/81404] suggested hints for standard C macros should avoid GCC predefined macros

[dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404

--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm  ---
Candidate patch:
  https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01083.html

[Bug fortran/82586] ICE: write_symbol(): bad module symbol

[dominiq at lps dot ens.fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586

Dominique d'Humieres  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres  ---
Confirmed on trunk (8.0).

[Bug fortran/82586] ICE: write_symbol(): bad module symbol

[gs...@t-online.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586

--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz  ---

Other invalid snippets :


$ cat z2.f90
program p
   type t(a
  integer, kind :: a
  real(a) :: x
   end type
end


$ cat z3.f90
program p
   type t(a, a)
  integer, kind :: a
  integer, len :: a
   end type
end


$ gfortran-8-20171015 -c z2.f90
f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
0xb5a08f crash_signal
../../gcc/toplev.c:326
0x66322b delete_root
../../gcc/fortran/bbt.c:150
0x6633fe gfc_delete_bbt(void*, void*, int (*)(void*, void*))
../../gcc/fortran/bbt.c:197
0x71b008 gfc_delete_symtree(gfc_symtree**, char const*)
../../gcc/fortran/symbol.c:2829
0x71c786 gfc_restore_last_undo_checkpoint()
../../gcc/fortran/symbol.c:3598
0x6db9d7 reject_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:2546
0x6dbaec match_word_omp_simd
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:98
0x6dfadb match_word
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:565
0x6dfadb decode_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:565
0x6e0fb4 next_free
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:1225
0x6e0fb4 next_statement
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:1457
0x6e2ddc parse_spec
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:3648
0x6e4d93 parse_progunit
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:5634
0x6e6354 gfc_parse_file()
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:6174
0x72a6bf gfc_be_parse_file
../../gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:204

[Bug fortran/82586] New: ICE: write_symbol(): bad module symbol

[gs...@t-online.de]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82586

Bug ID: 82586
   Summary: ICE: write_symbol(): bad module symbol
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: fortran
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: gs...@t-online.de
  Target Milestone: ---

I recently did some tests with the very new PDT feature
to generate some tiny, disruptive test cases :


$ cat z1.f90
module m
   type t(a)
   end type
end


$ gfortran-8-20171015 -c z1.f90
f951: internal compiler error: write_symbol(): bad module symbol 'a'
0x68da6f gfc_internal_error(char const*, ...)
../../gcc/fortran/error.c:1349
0x6ca032 write_symbol
../../gcc/fortran/module.c:5612
0x6ca07b write_symbol1_recursion
../../gcc/fortran/module.c:5839
0x6cce75 write_symbol1
../../gcc/fortran/module.c:5872
0x6cce75 write_module
../../gcc/fortran/module.c:6016
0x6cce75 dump_module
../../gcc/fortran/module.c:6143
0x6cd0fd gfc_dump_module(char const*, int)
../../gcc/fortran/module.c:6200
0x6e6a56 gfc_parse_file()
../../gcc/fortran/parse.c:6241
0x72a6bf gfc_be_parse_file
../../gcc/fortran/f95-lang.c:204

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

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560

--- Comment #6 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Oct 17 17:27:11 2017
New Revision: 253822

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253822=gcc=rev
Log:
[C++ PATCH 82560] missing dtor call

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01068.html
PR c++/82560
* call.c (build_over_call): Don't pass tf_no_cleanup to nested
calls.

PR c++/82560
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr82560.C: New.

Added:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr82560.C
Modified:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/call.c
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

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

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560

--- Comment #7 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Fixed on gcc-7 branch r253822.

[Bug tree-optimization/82585] New: missing -Warray-bounds calling strlen on a member at out-of-bounds offfset

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82585

Bug ID: 82585
   Summary: missing -Warray-bounds calling strlen on a member at
out-of-bounds offfset
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

The following test case should trigger two instances of -Warray-bounds, one in
each function, but it only triggers one.

$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -Warray-bounds a.c 
struct A { char a[3]; int i; };

extern char a[3];

int f1 (void)
{
  return __builtin_strlen (a + 4);   // -Warray-bounds (good)
}

int f2 (struct A *p)
{
  return __builtin_strlen (p->a + 4);   // missing -Warray-bounds
}

a.c: In function ‘f1’:
a.c:7:10: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
   return __builtin_strlen (a + 4);   // -Warray-bounds (good)
  ^~~~

[Bug middle-end/82546] tree_size handling for TYPE nodes is confused

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82546

Nathan Sidwell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

[Bug fortran/82550] program using submodules fails to link

[pault at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82550

--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas  ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1)
> Confirmed from 6.4 up to trunk (8.0).

Adding a reference to 'p' in 'foo' clears the problem.

module subroutine foo(fun_ptr)
  procedure(p), pointer, intent(out) :: fun_ptr
   call p()
  fun_ptr => p
end subroutine

I rather think that the pointer assignment is not setting 'p' as referenced.

Investigating.

Paul

[Bug middle-end/82556] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4307

[vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82556

--- Comment #4 from Vladimir Makarov  ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> Confirmed on the branch (for the unreduced testcase).  GCC 7.2 works.
> 
> Probably Jakubs pattern changes.

It is an unusual pattern for LRA.  I guess it should be fixed in LRA.  I'll
investigate the problem and try to find a fix in LRA.

[Bug libstdc++/82584] div by zero in random distribution

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82584

--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
The make_unique bit's irrelevant:
 std::discrete_distribution X (weights.begin(), weights.end());
is sufficient.

Reading 29.6.8.6.1 suggests the code is well formed, but all (two) probabilites
are zero

[Bug middle-end/52504] (unreachable) out of bounds access in thread_prologue_and_epilogue_insns

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52504

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||diagnostic
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
   Last reconfirmed|2013-02-25 00:00:00 |2017-10-17
 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor  ---
It's been a few years since this report was opened.  Can you please check with
a recent version of GCC whether the warning still occurs?  If it does, can in
addition reduce it to a small test case and include it in your comment?

[Bug tree-optimization/38480] bogus warning with -O3 -Wall: "array subscript is above array bounds"

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38480

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Known to work||7.2.0, 8.0
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
  Known to fail||4.9.4, 5.4.0, 6.3.0

--- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor  ---
There is no warning since r239421 (gcc 7.0.0) and function f() is optimized
into a no-op, so resolving as fixed.

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus warning when inlining or unrolling: "array subscript is above array bounds"

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 38480, which changed state.

Bug 38480 Summary: bogus warning with -O3 -Wall: "array subscript is above 
array bounds"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38480

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug libstdc++/82584] New: div by zero in random distribution

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82584

Bug ID: 82584
   Summary: div by zero in random distribution
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: libstdc++
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: nathan at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 42384
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42384=edit
compile with -fsanitize=float-divide-by-zero

the attached program, when using ubsan generates:
/data/users/nathans/trunk/obj/x86_64/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/random.tcc:88:25:
runtime error: division by zero

line 88 is:
  *__result = *__first / __factor;

and both *__first and __factor are zero.  We end up at:
   0x0040314c <+171>:   movsd  -0x40(%rbp),%xmm0
   0x00403151 <+176>:   divsd  -0x38(%rbp),%xmm0
   0x00403156 <+181>:   movsd  %xmm0,-0x38(%rbp)
where both the operands are zero

Not sure if this is user error in that feeding vector{0,0} to
discrete_distribution is valid or not.

[Bug tree-optimization/45180] bogus warning: array subscript is above array bounds

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45180

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Known to work||5.4.0, 6.4.0, 7.1.0, 8.0
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
  Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.3

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor  ---
The test case doesn't trigger a warning with recent GCC.  Bisection points to 
r220157 (gcc 5.0.0) as the fix.  Thus resolving as fixed.

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus warning when inlining or unrolling: "array subscript is above array bounds"

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 45180, which changed state.

Bug 45180 Summary: bogus warning: array subscript is above array bounds
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45180

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug middle-end/47418] warning: array subscript is above array bounds at O2 with sin6_addr

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47418

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |FIXED
  Known to fail||7.2.0, 8.0

--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor  ---
No warnings with recent versions.  Given that resolving as fixed (also as per
comment #4).

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus warning when inlining or unrolling: "array subscript is above array bounds"

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 47418, which changed state.

Bug 47418 Summary: warning: array subscript is above array bounds at O2 with 
sin6_addr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47418

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug tree-optimization/82583] New: missing -Warray-bounds on out-of-bounds inner indices

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82583

Bug ID: 82583
   Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on out-of-bounds inner indices
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

The -Warray-bounds warning seems to only check the innermost array index but it
doesn't check any of intervening ones.  This can be seen in the test case below
where the out-of-bounds index in 'p->a[1].a[4]' in f() is detected but the
similarly out-of-bounds index in 'p->a[2]' is not.

$ cat a.c && gcc -O3 -S -Wall -Warray-bounds a.c 
struct A { int a[4]; int i; };
struct B { struct A a[2]; int i; };

void f (struct B *p)
{
  p->a[1].a[4] = 1;   // -Warray-bounds (good)
}

void g (struct B *p)
{
  p->a[2].a[3] = 1;   // missing -Warray-bounds
}

a.c: In function ‘f’:
a.c:6:12: warning: array subscript is above array bounds [-Warray-bounds]
   p->a[1].a[4] = 1;   // -Warray-bounds (good)
   ~^~~

[Bug target/82582] New: not quite optimal code for -2*x*y - 3*z: could use one less LEA for smaller code without increasing critical path latency for any input

[peter at cordes dot ca]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82582

Bug ID: 82582
   Summary: not quite optimal code for -2*x*y - 3*z: could use one
less LEA for smaller code without increasing critical
path latency for any input
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Keywords: missed-optimization
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: peter at cordes dot ca
  Target Milestone: ---
Target: x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*

int foo32(int x, int y, int z) {
return -2*x*y - 3*z;
}

gcc8.0.0 20171015 -O3   https://godbolt.org/g/tzBuHx

imull   %esi, %edi# x*y
leal0(,%rdx,4), %eax# needs a disp32 = 0
subl%eax, %edx# -3*z
negl%edi  # -(x*y)
leal(%rdx,%rdi,2), %eax   # result

LEA runs on limited ports, and an index with no base needs a 4-byte disp32 = 0.
The critical-path latencies, assuming 2-operand imul is 3 cycles like on Intel:

x->res: imul, neg, lea = 5c
y->res: imul, neg, lea = 5c
z->res:  lea, sub, lea = 3c

This is better than gcc6.3 / gcc7.2 (which uses 3 LEA and is generally worse). 
It's also different from gcc4/gcc5 (6c from x to result, but only 2c from z to
result, so it's different but not worse or better in all cases).


clang5.0 does better: same latencies, smaller code size, and trades one LEA for
an ADD:
imull   %esi, %edi
addl%edi, %edi
leal(%rdx,%rdx,2), %eax
negl%eax
subl%edi, %eax

x->res: imul, add, sub = 5c
y->res: imul, add, sub = 5c
z->res:  lea, neg, sub = 3c



related: poor code-gen for 32-bit code with this.  I haven't checked other
32-bit architectures.

long long foo64(int x, int y, int z) {
return -2LL*x*(long long)y - 3LL*(long long)z;
}
// also on the godbolt link

gcc -m32 uses a 3-operand imul-immediate for `-2`, but some clunky shifting for
`-3`.  There's also a mull in there.

clang5.0 -m32 makes very nice code, using a one-operand imul for -3 and just
shld/add + sub/sbb (plus some mov instructions).  One-operand mul/imul is 3
uops on Intel with 2 clock throughput, but ADC is 2 uops on Intel
pre-Broadwell, so it's nice to avoid that.

related: add %esi,%esi / sbb %edi,%edi  is an interesting way to sign-extend a
32-bit input into a pair of registers while doubling it.  However, if it starts
in eax,  cltd / add %eax,%eax is much better.  (sbb same,same is only
recognized as dep-breaking on AMD Bulldozer-family and Ryzen.  On Intel it has
a false dep on the old value of the register, not just CF).

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

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560

Nathan Sidwell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Fixed r253820.

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

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82560

--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:52:21 2017
New Revision: 253820

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253820=gcc=rev
Log:
[C++ PATCH 82560] missing dtor call

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01068.html
PR c++/82560
* call.c (build_over_call): Don't pass tf_no_cleanup to nested
calls.

PR c++/82560
* g++.dg/cpp0x/pr82560.C: New.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/pr82560.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/call.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug middle-end/82577] [8 Regression] ICE in compare_base_decls, at alias.c:2053

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82577

Nathan Sidwell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Fixed r253819.

[Bug middle-end/82577] [8 Regression] ICE in compare_base_decls, at alias.c:2053

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82577

--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Oct 17 15:42:19 2017
New Revision: 253819

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253819=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH, middle-end/82577] Fix DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg01067.html
gcc/
PR middle-end/82577
* alias.c (compare_base_decls): Check HAS_DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_P,
use DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME_RAW.

gcc/testsuite/
PR middle-end/82577
* g++.dg/opt/pr82577.C: New.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/opt/pr82577.C
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/alias.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug tree-optimization/82549] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O1 and above: verify_gimple failed

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82549

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Fixed for 6.5+, 7.3+ and 8+.

[Bug middle-end/63441] incorrect "array subscript is below/above array bounds" diagnostic

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63441

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor  ---
I still see the warning with today's top of trunk (GCC 4.8) but I agree that
some sort of a diagnostic here seems helpful.

It would be nice if the warning could distinguish between cases where the index
definitely is out of bounds and those where it could be but it's not 100%
certain.  I haven't looked at the implementation to see if this is feasible.

It would also be helpful to have clarity (both for users and GCC developers) on
what diagnostics are meant to be issued under what circumstances.  Based on
some other warnings (-Wuninitialized and -Wmaybe-uninitialized) it seems
reasonable to expect -Warray-bounds to only be issued when an index is
definitely out of bounds (and not when it could be).

[Bug middle-end/63477] [6/7/8 Regression] Bogus warning with -O3 -Warray-bounds: array subscript is above array bounds

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63477

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
 CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Known to work||4.7.4
Summary|Bogus warning with -O3  |[6/7/8 Regression] Bogus
   |-Warray-bounds: array   |warning with -O3
   |subscript is above array|-Warray-bounds: array
   |bounds  |subscript is above array
   ||bounds
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
  Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.2.0,
   ||7.1.0, 8.0

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor  ---
Confirmed.  The first revision to trigger the error is r192990 (gcc 4.8.0) so
marking this a regression.

[Bug middle-end/82286] [6/7/8 Regression] Wrong array subscript is above array bounds

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82286

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,
   ||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
   See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
   ||a/show_bug.cgi?id=80907
Summary|Wrong array subscript is|[6/7/8 Regression] Wrong
   |above array bounds  |array subscript is above
   ||array bounds

--- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor  ---
The first revision to trigger the warning is r192538 (gcc 4.8.0), thus marking
this a regression.  (See also bug 80907 which is also caused by the same
revision.)

[Bug tree-optimization/80907] [6/7/8 Regression] False positive: "warning: array subscript is above array bounds"

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80907

Martin Sebor  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
  Known to work||4.7.4
   Last reconfirmed||2017-10-17
  Component|c++ |tree-optimization
 CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1
Summary|False positive: "warning:   |[6/7/8 Regression] False
   |array subscript is above|positive: "warning: array
   |array bounds"   |subscript is above array
   ||bounds"
  Known to fail||4.8.3, 4.9.3, 5.3.0, 6.2.0,
   ||7.1.0, 8.0

--- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor  ---
Confirmed.  I see the same warning issued twice.  The first revision to trigger
the warning is r192538 (gcc 4.8.0), thus marking this a regression.

$ cat a.c && gcc -O3 -S -Wall -Warray-bounds a.c

int x[3];
int n=2;
void foo() 
{
for(int i=0;i

[Bug tree-optimization/82581] New: missing -Warray-bounds on writing past the end of a member array

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82581

Bug ID: 82581
   Summary: missing -Warray-bounds on writing past the end of a
member array
   Product: gcc
   Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: tree-optimization
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

When the bounds of a member array are exceeded in a loop that accesses the
member directly by its name, GCC issues a -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
warning mentioning the iteration of the loop in which the undefined behavior
occurs.  But when the same access takes place indirectly through a pointer to
the member, no diagnostic is issued.  Since the number of iterations of the
loop is known I would expect a -Warray-bounds warning (ideally in both cases,
even when no aggressive loop optimizations are performed).

As an aside, since the first iteration of a loop is usually thought of as
iteration 1 (not iteration zero), the iteration number referenced in the
-Waggressive-loop-optimizations warning is off by one.  Since the array has
three elements, iteration 3 writes into the last (third) element, and it's
iteration four that has undefined behavior.

$ cat a.c && gcc -O2 -S -Wall -Warray-bounds -Wextra a.c
struct S
{
  int a[3];
  void (*pf)(void);
} x;

void f (void)
{
  for (unsigned i = 0; i != sizeof x; ++i)   // -Waggressive-loop-optimizations
x.a[i] = i;
}

void g (void)
{
  int *p = x.a;

  for (unsigned i = 0; i != sizeof x; ++i)
p[i] = i;// missing -Warray-bounds
}
a.c: In function ‘f’:
a.c:10:12: warning: iteration 3 invokes undefined behavior
[-Waggressive-loop-optimizations]
 x.a[i] = i;
 ~~~^~~
a.c:9:3: note: within this loop
   for (unsigned i = 0; i != sizeof x; ++i)
   ^~~

[Bug tree-optimization/82549] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O1 and above: verify_gimple failed

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82549

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:53:13 2017
New Revision: 253818

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253818=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82549
* fold-const.c (optimize_bit_field_compare, fold_truth_andor_1):
Formatting fixes.  Instead of calling make_bit_field_ref with negative
bitpos return 0.

* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr82549.c: New test.

Added:
branches/gcc-6-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr82549.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-6-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-6-branch/gcc/fold-const.c
branches/gcc-6-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug middle-end/82546] tree_size handling for TYPE nodes is confused

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82546

--- Comment #1 from Nathan Sidwell  ---
Author: nathan
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:49:05 2017
New Revision: 253817

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253817=gcc=rev
Log:
[PATCH PR/82546] tree node size

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00899.html
PR middle-end/82546
gcc/
* tree.c (tree_code_size): Reformat.  Punt to lang hook for unknown
TYPE nodes.
gcc/cp/
* cp-objcp-common.c (cp_tree_size): Reformat.  Adjust returns size
of TYPE nodes.
gcc/objc/
* objc-act.c (objc_common_tree_size): Return size of TYPE nodes.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/cp-objcp-common.c
trunk/gcc/objc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/objc/objc-act.c
trunk/gcc/tree.c

[Bug tree-optimization/82549] [6/7 Regression] ICE at -O1 and above: verify_gimple failed

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82549

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:47:15 2017
New Revision: 253816

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253816=gcc=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/82549
* fold-const.c (optimize_bit_field_compare, fold_truth_andor_1):
Formatting fixes.  Instead of calling make_bit_field_ref with negative
bitpos return 0.

* gcc.c-torture/compile/pr82549.c: New test.

Added:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr82549.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/fold-const.c
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug c++/77369] incorrect noexcept specification deduction

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77369

Jason Merrill  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/80295] [7 Regression] ICE in __builtin_update_setjmp_buf expander

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295

Paolo Carlini  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|[7/8 Regression] ICE in |[7 Regression] ICE in
   |__builtin_update_setjmp_buf |__builtin_update_setjmp_buf
   |expander|expander

--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini  ---
Fixed in trunk for the time being.

[Bug middle-end/80295] [7/8 Regression] ICE in __builtin_update_setjmp_buf expander

[paolo at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295

--- Comment #12 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org  ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:17:17 2017
New Revision: 253815

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253815=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog

2017-10-17  Qing Zhao 
Wilco Dijkstra 

* builtins.c (expand_builtin_update_setjmp_buf): Add a
converstion to Pmode from the buf_addr.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

2017-10-17  Qing Zhao 
Wilco Dijkstra 

PR middle-end/80295
* gcc.target/aarch64/pr80295.c: New test.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug middle-end/80295] [7/8 Regression] ICE in __builtin_update_setjmp_buf expander

[paolo at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80295

--- Comment #11 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org  ---
Author: paolo
Date: Tue Oct 17 14:16:35 2017
New Revision: 253814

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253814=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/ChangeLog

2017-10-17  Qing Zhao 
Wilco Dijkstra 

* builtins.c (expand_builtin_update_setjmp_buf): Add a
converstion to Pmode from the buf_addr.

gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

2017-10-17  Qing Zhao 
Wilco Dijkstra 

PR middle-end/80295
* gcc.target/aarch64/pr80295.c: New test.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/aarch64/pr80295.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/builtins.c

[Bug middle-end/82577] [8 Regression] ICE in compare_base_decls, at alias.c:2053

[nathan at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82577

Nathan Sidwell  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org  |nathan at gcc dot 
gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/82569] [8 regression] failure in 177.mesa cpu2000 test case after r253530

[seurer at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82569

--- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
extern void gl_write_texture_span( GLcontext *ctx,
   GLuint n, GLint x, GLint y, GLdepth z[],
   GLfloat s[], GLfloat t[], GLfloat u[],
   GLfloat lambda[],
   GLubyte red[], GLubyte green[],
   GLubyte blue[], GLubyte alpha[],
   GLenum primitive );

[Bug ada/82573] GNAT.Registry doesn't read/write with HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE.

[hudsonjk at astound dot net]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82573

--- Comment #2 from Jerry Hudson  ---
I was confused by what you meant by "classpath."  The
earlier revision by Andrew Pinski better describes the
problem, but I don't recall seeing that option on the form.
Forgive me, this is the first bug report for me.  (I have used
Gnu products quite a bit, and bugs are RARE.)

- Jerry Hudson

On 10/17/2017 2:03 AM, gnu_andrew at member dot fsf.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82573
>
> Andrew John Hughes  changed:
>
> What|Removed |Added
> 
>   CC||gnu_andrew at member dot 
> fsf.org
>
> --- Comment #1 from Andrew John Hughes  ---
> This doesn't seem to be related to GNU Classpath.
>

[Bug tree-optimization/71026] Missing division optimizations

[wilco at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71026

--- Comment #7 from Wilco  ---
Author: wilco
Date: Tue Oct 17 13:22:48 2017
New Revision: 253812

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253812=gcc=rev
Log:
Factor out division by squares and remove division around comparisons (0/2)

Commit gcc/fold-const.c missing from r252827:

gcc/
PR 71026/tree-optimization
* fold-const.c (distribute_real_division): Removed.
(fold_binary_loc): Remove calls to distribute_real_divison.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c

[Bug tree-optimization/82563] [8 Regression] [graphite] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.c:709

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82563

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener  ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Oct 17 13:17:30 2017
New Revision: 253809

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253809=gcc=rev
Log:
2017-10-17  Richard Biener  

PR tree-optimization/82563
* graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c (generate_entry_out_of_ssa_copies):
New function.
(graphite_regenerate_ast_isl): Call it.
* graphite-scop-detection.c (build_scops): Remove entry edge split.

* gcc.dg/graphite/pr82563.c: New testcase.

Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/graphite/pr82563.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c
trunk/gcc/graphite-scop-detection.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog

[Bug target/82580] New: Optimize comparisons for __int128 on x86-64

[morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82580

Bug ID: 82580
   Summary: Optimize comparisons for __int128 on x86-64
   Product: gcc
   Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: morwenn29 at hotmail dot fr
  Target Milestone: ---

Given the following simple code:

bool foobar(unsigned __int128 lhs, unsigned __int128 rhs) {
return lhs < rhs;
}

GCC generates branchful code for x86-64 at -O3 optimization level:

foobar(unsigned __int128, unsigned __int128):
cmp rsi, rcx
mov eax, 1
jb .L2
jbe .L6
.L3:
xor eax, eax
.L2:
rep ret
.L6:
cmp rdi, rdx
jnb .L3
rep ret

On the other hand, Clang is able to generate branchless code with just a few
instructions at the same optimization level:

foobar(unsigned __int128, unsigned __int128): # @foobar(unsigned __int128,
unsigned __int128)
cmp rdi, rdx
sbb rsi, rcx
setb al
ret

The codegen results are equivalent for the other comparison instructions. Would
it be possible to optimize these comparison instructions the same way for GCC?

[Bug c++/82579] GCC 7/8 ambiguous call to overload

[ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82579

Viktor Ostashevskyi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|FIXED   |INVALID

[Bug c++/82579] GCC 7/8 ambiguous call to overload

[ostash at ostash dot kiev.ua]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82579

Viktor Ostashevskyi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #2 from Viktor Ostashevskyi  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1)
> This is not a GCC bug, because it's the required behaviour for C++17.
> 
> Use -fno-new-ttp-matching to disable it in C++17 (or use -fnew-ttp-matching
> to enable it in C++14 and make it ambiguous).

Huh, thanks for clearing this. Then this is a bug in Boost and maybe Clang.