[Bug bootstrap/68873] excessive duplicate checking during build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68873 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/71151] [avr] -fmerge-constants and -fdata-sections/-ffunction-sections results in string constants in .progmem.gcc_sw section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71151 --- Comment #23 from Senthil Kumar Selvaraj --- Tracking binutils bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20545

[Bug c++/60994] gcc does not recognize hidden/shadowed enumeration as valid nested-name-specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60994 drepper.fsp+rhbz at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/77438] New: MMX intrinsic on x86_64 generates bloated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77438 Bug ID: 77438 Summary: MMX intrinsic on x86_64 generates bloated code Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 --- Comment #5 from Manish --- ../configure --enable-multilib --with-gmp=../gmp --with-mpc=../mpc --with-mpfr=../mpfr

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 --- Comment #4 from Manish --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Couple of questions: > 1) What version of gcc are you starting with? > 2) the log file does not have all of error messages (there are some more I > know of it).

[PATCH v2, rs6000] Fix PR72827 (ada bootstrap failure)

Hi, After much discussion we've concluded that the first patch isn't salvageable. There are register assignments for which we can't fix up the addressing legally after reload using such tricks (for example: base=r31, offset=r0). This patch (suggested by Michael Meissner) instead prevents the

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Also how did you configure gcc?

[Bug rtl-optimization/77416] [7 Regression] LRA rematerializing use of CA reg across function call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77416 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- Here's a creduce'd minimal version of the test case that shows the addz after the function call. Same compiler options as above. extern int fn2 (); extern void fn3 (); extern void fn4 (int); int a, c, d,

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Component|other

[Bug other/77437] recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Manish changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manishthatte at hotmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug other/77437] New: recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77437 Bug ID: 77437 Summary: recipe for target 'cp/cp-array-notation.o' failed Product: gcc Version: 4.9.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3

[Bug c++/57728] Explicit template instantiation with defaulted method causes missing symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57728 --- Comment #11 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Sep 1 01:55:47 2016 New Revision: 239913 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239913=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/57728 - adjust testcase * g++.dg/cpp0x/explicit12.C: Add

[PATCH 3/3] rs6000: Use LR_REGNO directly in the save/restore patterns

Various patterns use "register_operand" "l" (or "=l") although those patterns are only created refering to LR_REGNO directly. This patch changes those patterns to use the hard regs as well. Bootstrapped and regression checked on powerpc64-linux -m32,-m64. Segher 2016-08-31 Segher

[committed] C: Fix missing spaces in 'struct' fix-it hints

In r237714 I added fix-it hints to the C frontend for missing "struct" keywords e.g.: spellcheck-typenames.c:69:1: error: unknown type name ‘foo_t’; use ‘struct’ keyword to refer to the type foo_t *foo_ptr; ^ struct However when using the (not yet in trunk) option

[PATCH 2/3] rs6000: Use LR_REGNO instead of constant 65

Many places still use 65 instead of the symbolic constant LR_REGNO. This fixes them all (I looked for the string "65" only, in config/rs6000/ only, I didn't read all code :-) ) I left it in *restore_world because Iain will remove it there soon. Bootstrapped and regression checked on

[PATCH 1/3] rs6000: Fix for AIX, for r239866

This should fix r239866 for AIX. I missed two patterns that refer to LR as "register_operand" "l" instead of as reg:P LR_REGNO. David, could you please test if this fixes the problem for you? Bootstrapped and regression checked on powerpc64-linux -m32,-m64, for what that is worth :-) Segher

[PATCH] Improvements to typed_splay_tree (v2)

On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 16:12 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > On 08/24/2016 03:28 AM, David Malcolm wrote: > > +/* Helper type for typed_splay_tree::foreach. */ > > + > > +template > > +struct closure > > Is this in the global namespace? If so, something more specific than > "closure" might be more

[PATCH] PR fortran/77406

Consider the code interface s subroutine foo(*) end subroutine foo subroutine bar(*) end subroutine bar end interface s end gfortran currently ICE's, because she is ill-prepared to deal with alternate returns in an interface blocks. The attached patch fixes this

[Bug tree-optimization/69823] [6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in create_pw_aff_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823 --- Comment #6 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5) > Test-case minimized from PR68279: That should have been: Test-case minimized from PR68279 comment 3

[Bug tree-optimization/69823] [6/7 Regression] internal compiler error: in create_pw_aff_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69823 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c/77436] Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 --- Comment #3 from Lucas Werkmeister --- Sorry, I wasn’t aware that wrapping is defined but overflow isn’t. The bug also happens if the summand type is changed to long (or, precisely, int64_t), where overflow shouldn’t happen (we’re adding at

Re: [PING] Use correct location information for OpenACC shape and simple clauses in C/C++

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2016-08-04 at 16:54 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> I think in your position as a maintainer for "diagnostic messages", >> you should be qualified to exercise that status to approve such a >> patch. :-) > I don't know exactly where the

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c++/77434] warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > following is not suspicious and it would seem silly to warn for it: > > return (a > 0 && b <= 3 ? 1 : 2); > > (because the suggested alternative parse

[Bug c/77436] Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/77436] Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/77436] New: Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77436 Bug ID: 77436 Summary: Incorrect constant result for summing loop inserted Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/49232] Pointer assignment of stride to CONTIGUOUS pointer not diagnosed as invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49232 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- Straightforward patch: Index: expr.c === --- expr.c (Revision 239218) +++ expr.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -3764,6 +3764,45 @@ }

[Bug c++/77435] New: Dependent reference non-type template parameter not matched for partial specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77435 Bug ID: 77435 Summary: Dependent reference non-type template parameter not matched for partial specialization Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/77434] warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > > Code such as the following are suspicious: > > > > int foo(int a, int b) > > { > > return (a > 0 && a <= (b == 1) ? 1 : 2); >

[Bug c++/77434] warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Code such as the following are suspicious: > > int foo(int a, int b) > { > return (a > 0 && a <= (b == 1) ? 1 : 2); Actually I don't

Re: [MPX] Fix for PR77267

2016-08-31 16:37 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : > 2016-08-31 12:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich : >> 2016-08-30 21:53 GMT+03:00 Alexander Ivchenko : >>> Would something like that count? >>> >>> I did not do the warning thing, cause the

[PATCH] PR target/77408: Add -mcopy-reloc to avoid copy relocation

On x86, copy relocation is used in executable to access external data defined in shared object as if it is defined locally. At run-time, dynamic linker copies symbol data from shared object to executable and its references from shared objects are resolved by GLOB_DAT relocation. Since the copy of

Re: PR35503 - warn for restrict pointer

2016-08-30 17:34 GMT+02:00 Prathamesh Kulkarni : > On 30 August 2016 at 20:24, Tom de Vries wrote: >> On 26/08/16 13:39, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> The following patch adds option -Wrestrict that warns when an argument >>> is

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Fix PR72827 (ada bootstrap failure)

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:00 AM, Bill Schmidt wrote: > > > On 8/31/16 1:19 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>> >> If (say) base=r1 offset=r0 this will now adjust r1? That cannot be good. > Mm, yeah, that wasn't well-thought. Was thinking 0, not r0. Will have > to

[Bug fortran/77429] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/77432] warn about null check after pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This needs data flow as the front-end has no way to process *a and then a.

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 --- Comment #6 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #5) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > > This needs data flow to see if b usage cross over the clobber or not. > > I think the simpler case

[PATCH, AVX-512, committed] Fix detection of AVX512IFMA in host_detect_local_cpu

Hi! I've committed this patch as obvious. gcc/ * config/i386/driver-i386.c (host_detect_local_cpu): Fix detection of AVX512IFMA. Index: gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c === --- gcc/config/i386/driver-i386.c (revision 239907) +++

[Bug middle-end/77432] warn about null check after pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 --- Comment #5 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > This needs data flow to see if b usage cross over the clobber or not. I think the simpler case can be warned in the FE. I cannot imagine a correct use of

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- This also should be detected at runtime with either -fsantizer=undefined or -fsantizer=address (if it is not, please file another bug for that).

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about usage of object that outside of the scope of the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/77433] warn about object that escapes its scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end --- Comment #2 from Andrew

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #10 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > I'd also encourage people to look at these issues for ideas for new > warnings in GCC, if they can define a warning case that's plausible to >

[Bug c++/77433] warn about object that escapes its scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Summary|warn

[Bug c++/77434] New: warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434 Bug ID: 77434 Summary: warn about suspicious precedence of ternary operator (?:) Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug c++/77433] New: warn about pointer that escapes its scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77433 Bug ID: 77433 Summary: warn about pointer that escapes its scope Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

Re: [x86] Disable STV pass if -mstackrealign is enabled.

> the new STV pass generates SSE instructions in 32-bit mode very late in the > pipeline and doesn't bother about realigning the stack, so it wreaks havoc on > OSes where you need to realign the stack, e.g. Windows, but I guess Solaris is > equally affected. Therefore the attached patch disables

[Bug c++/77432] New: warn about null check after pointer dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77432 Bug ID: 77432 Summary: warn about null check after pointer dereference Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug rtl-optimization/77425] Pointer test follows dereference in sched-int.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77425 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[PATCH] Fix up -fsanitize=address ctor order (PR sanitizer/77396)

Hi! libasan currently has an assertion that __asan_before_dynamic_init is called only after registering at least one global var. I have no idea how to always guarantee that without making the code too ugly or registering dummy global vars, since the registration of globals is done at the end of

[Bug tree-optimization/77424] Identical statements in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77424 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/77431] New: warn for having the same code in if-else branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77431 Bug ID: 77431 Summary: warn for having the same code in if-else branches Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #9 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- || xloc.file == '\0' || xloc.file[0] == '\xff' || xloc.file[1] == '\xff') This missing warning is PR64767

[Bug c++/64767] Could GCC warn when a pointer is compared against '\0'?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64767 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/71077] [7 Regression] gcc -lto raises ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71077 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka --- Author: ppalka Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016 New Revision: 239907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907=gcc=rev Log: Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons gcc/ChangeLog: Backport from

[Bug middle-end/68542] [6 Regression] 10% 481.wrf performance regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68542 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka --- Author: ppalka Date: Wed Aug 31 19:06:22 2016 New Revision: 239907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239907=gcc=rev Log: Fix folding of VECTOR_CST comparisons gcc/ChangeLog: Backport from

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #8 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > Remaining issues: The missing warning is tracked in PR77430.

[Bug c++/77430] New: warn about redundant assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77430 Bug ID: 77430 Summary: warn about redundant assignments Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: c++

[committed] diagnostic-show-locus.c: handle fixits on lines outside the regular ranges

The diagnostic_show_locus implementation determines the set of line spans that need printing based on the ranges within the rich_location (in layout::calculate_line_spans). Currently this doesn't take into account fix-it hints, and hence we fail to print fix-it hints that are on lines outside of

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Re: [doc] doc/install.texi: www.opencsw.org now uses https.

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > 2016-08-22 Gerald Pfeifer > > * doc/install.texi (Binaries): www.opencsw.org now uses https. > > Applied. > > I'll backport to GCC 6 as well, once Richi has unfrozen the branch. Done. Gerald

[Bug fortran/77429] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429 --- Comment #1 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- Whereas : $ cat z3.f90 program p shape(1,2,3) = 0 end $ gfortran-7-20160828 z3.f90 z3.f90:2:3: shape(1,2,3) = 0 1 Error: Too many arguments in call

[Bug fortran/77429] New: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77429 Bug ID: 77429 Summary: ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.c:1261 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/77352] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77352 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:55 2016 New Revision: 239904 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239904=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/77352 * trans-openmp.c

[committed] Fix ICE with !$omp parallel workshare (PR fortran/77352)

Hi! This is something I've fixed recently for a couple of construct, but left parallel workshare untouched. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk. 2016-08-31 Jakub Jelinek PR fortran/77352 * trans-openmp.c

[Bug fortran/77374] [6/7 Regression] ICE in resolve_omp_atomic, at fortran/openmp.c:3949

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77374 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Aug 31 18:42:08 2016 New Revision: 239903 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239903=gcc=rev Log: PR fortran/77374 * parse.c (parse_omp_oacc_atomic): Copy over

[committed] Fix ICE with !$omp atomic (PR fortran/77374)

Hi! The resolve_omp_atomic code relied on gfc_resolve_blocks not actually changing the kinds and number of statements, which is apparently no longer the case, there are various changes where those can change, e.g. after diagnosing an error EXEC_ASSIGN can be changed into EXEC_NOP, or for the F08

[Bug c/71345] Warn about redundant conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71345 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/77426] Duplicate condition in expmed.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[patch] Fix segfault in param_change_prob

Hi, the attached Ada testcase triggers a segfault in param_change_prob because the parameter is VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR (or

[Bug tree-optimization/73714] [Regression 7] Incorrect unsigned long long arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug preprocessor/42669] libcpp: five redundant tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42669 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/77427] [7 Regression] ice when canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug objc/77428] incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 39528 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39528=edit tentative patch

[Bug objc/77428] New: incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77428 Bug ID: 77428 Summary: incorrect 'set but not used' warning with @throw Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/59124] [5/6/7 Regression] Wrong warnings "array subscript is above array bounds"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124 --- Comment #44 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Szőts Ákos from comment #43) > Yes, I can agree with this reasoning. However, when you remove either the > "while" or the "if" statements, the warning disappears. I don't think they > should

match.pd: Revert a * (1 << b) relaxation

Hello, this patch was bootstrapped and regtested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. Already committed, since this is simply reverting part of my patch. -- Marc GlisseIndex: gcc/ChangeLog === --- gcc/ChangeLog (revision 239901)

[Bug other/77417] libiberty strverscmp incompatible with glibc strverscmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77417 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/73714] [Regression 7] Incorrect unsigned long long arithmetic optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73714 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- Author: glisse Date: Wed Aug 31 18:22:58 2016 New Revision: 239902 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239902=gcc=rev Log: match.pd: Revert a * (1 << b) relaxation. 2016-08-31 Marc Glisse

[Bug c++/77427] New: ice when canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77427 Bug ID: 77427 Summary: ice when canonical types differ for identical types Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- I don't really like that. The linker has all the info to remove unused mergeable constants or strings, so if it doesn't do that now, it should be changed to do that.

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 39526 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39526=edit A patch

[Bug libfortran/77393] [7 Regression] Revision r237735 changed the behavior of F0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393 --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Aug 31 17:54:32 2016 New Revision: 239901 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239901=gcc=rev Log: 2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle PR

[Bug libfortran/77393] [7 Regression] Revision r237735 changed the behavior of F0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77393 --- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Wed Aug 31 17:45:26 2016 New Revision: 239900 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=239900=gcc=rev Log: 2016-08-31 Jerry DeLisle PR

[Bug fortran/48298] [F03] User-Defined Derived-Type IO (DTIO)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48298 --- Comment #18 from Walter Spector --- Awesome! I have noticed one bug so far. The compiler is missing a check to see if the arguments in the I/O procedures have the 'optional' attribute. It is allowing the attribute - even though it is

Re: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016, James Greenhalgh wrote: > My concern with this is that the use of comparisons of FLT_EVAL_METHOD > against 0 that Szabolcs is referring to is common and can have performance > implications. In glibc for example, > > static FLOAT > overflow_value (int negative) > { >

[gomp4] vector reductions

This patch changes the implementation of vector reductions. Currently we emit a sequence of shuffle/op pairs. The size of the sequence depends on the vector size. This changes the implementation to emit a loop, the number of iterations of which depends on the vector size. the goal here is a

[Bug middle-end/77422] -fdata-sections should put each constant in its own section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77422 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > That doesn't make sense. The mergeable sections really need to be the same, > otherwise nothing gets merged. And, unused constants/strings in those can > be removed

[Bug other/77421] Bugs found in GCC with the help of PVS-Studio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77421 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Oh one more I missed. alter_output_for_subst_insn in gensupport.c has: if (alt < 2 || *insn_out == '*' || *insn_out != '@') return insn_out; The second condition is redundant, since if it's == '*'

[PATCH] Constrain std::shared_ptr assignment and resetting

The standard subtly requires us to constrain the assignment operators, due to "Effects: Equivalent to [a constrained expression]". Constraining reset() is not required, but a private discussion started by Alisdair Meredith has convinced me that it's useful (and apparently libc++ already does

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++/77334 move assign RB trees of non-copyable types

On 30/08/16 11:17 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 27/08/16 21:29 +0200, François Dumont wrote: On 23/08/2016 15:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote: This fixes move assignment of RB trees to tag dispatch so the branch that copies nodes doesn't need to be well-formed. PR libstdc++/77334 *

Re: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6]

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:23:55PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > > On 17/08/16 21:17, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > Although there is HFmode support for ARM and AArch64, use of that for > > > _Float16 is not enabled. Supporting _Float16 would require

Re: [PATCH] Define feature-test macro for std::enable_shared_from_this

On 04/08/16 13:33 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 03/08/16 20:11 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Another feature we already support, so just define the macro. * include/bits/shared_ptr_base.h (__cpp_lib_enable_shared_from_this): Define feature-test macro. *

Re: [PATCH] Fixups for Martin's gimple-ssa-sprintf.c patch

On 08/31/2016 10:26 AM, David Malcolm wrote: On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 10:23 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: On 08/25/2016 10:30 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 08/25/2016 10:23 AM, David Malcolm wrote: Martin: here are the fixups for your patch I needed to apply to make it work with mine. I couldn't

[Bug middle-end/77426] Duplicate condition in expmed.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77426 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

Re: [v3 PATCH, RFC] Implement LWG 2729 for tuple

On 31 August 2016 at 18:40, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Now tested with the full testsuite on Linux-PPC64, test in the patch > amended slightly. > New patch attached. I added some more torture to the new test and re-indented it. diff --git

  1   2   >