[Bug c/68090] VLA compound literal -- "confused by earlier errors, bailing out"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68090 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/68098] New: Function multiversioning causes segfaults when used for member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68098 Bug ID: 68098 Summary: Function multiversioning causes segfaults when used for member functions Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/68096] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault(program cc1plus)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68096 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug middle-end/65962] Missed vectorization of strided stores

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #6) > This commit (r229172) caused a vectorization failure for POWER: > > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/vect-62.c -flto -ffat-lto-objects scan-tree-dump-times > vect "vectorized

[Bug sanitizer/68016] ASan doesn't catch overflow in globals when COPY relocation is involved.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016 --- Comment #4 from Maxim Ostapenko --- Actualy, LLVM is not better here (perhaps even worse). Consider the following testcase (it's the same Jakub provided in PR63888): max@max:/tmp$ cat libfoo.c long f = 4; long foo (long *p) { return *p;

[Bug target/68091] [6 Regression] [SH] internal compiler error: in expand_vec_cond_expr, at optabs.c:5391

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68091 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/68083] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/67989] [4.9/5/6 Regression] g++ ICE on armel valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989 --- Comment #12 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Fixed on trunk. Now testing backports to GCC 5 and 4.9

[Bug tree-optimization/68097] We should track ranges for floating-point values too

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug middle-end/68067] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68067 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/13423] sh-elf: V4SFmode passed in integer registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13423 --- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo --- See also PR 68091

[Bug c/68090] VLA compound literal -- "confused by earlier errors, bailing out"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68090 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug tree-optimization/68097] We should track ranges for floating-point values too

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- If we are generalizing VRP, how about vectors? A single interval per vector would be enough for most of the benefit.

[Bug middle-end/65947] Vectorizer misses conditional assignment of constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65947 --- Comment #7 from Alan Hayward --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #6) > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-1.c (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr65947-1.c (test for excess errors) > Excess errors: >

[Bug tree-optimization/68083] [6 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68083 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug c/68090] VLA compound literal -- "confused by earlier errors, bailing out"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68090 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/67989] [4.9/5/6 Regression] g++ ICE on armel valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67989 --- Comment #11 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ktkachov Date: Mon Oct 26 10:28:12 2015 New Revision: 229317 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229317=gcc=rev Log: [optabs.c] Fix PR 67989: Handle const0_rtx target in

[Bug target/68091] [6 Regression] [SH] internal compiler error: in expand_vec_cond_expr, at optabs.c:5391

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68091 --- Comment #3 from Kazumoto Kojima --- Author: kkojima Date: Mon Oct 26 11:30:11 2015 New Revision: 229336 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229336=gcc=rev Log: [config/sh/sh.c] Fix PR68091: Return false for non shmedia targets in

[Bug c++/68094] Compiler segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68094 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Please attach preprocessed source for the testcase and the output of appending -v to the compiler-command. See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html

[Bug c++/68094] Compiler segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68094 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/68097] New: We should track ranges for floating-point values too

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097 Bug ID: 68097 Summary: We should track ranges for floating-point values too Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3

[Bug target/68091] [6 Regression] [SH] internal compiler error: in expand_vec_cond_expr, at optabs.c:5391

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68091 --- Comment #2 from Kazumoto Kojima --- OK, I'll commit it as a quick fix if the usual tests done successfully.

[Bug c++/68096] New: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault(program cc1plus)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68096 Bug ID: 68096 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault(program cc1plus) Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical

[Bug c++/68092] [C++1z] error: Two symbols with same comdat_group are not linked by the same_comdat_group list.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68092 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/68097] We should track ranges for floating-point values too

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68097 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think I might have filed about this before.

[Bug c/68105] New: optimizing repeated floating point addition to multiplication

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68105 Bug ID: 68105 Summary: optimizing repeated floating point addition to multiplication Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug libffi/65441] FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441 --- Comment #4 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Tue Oct 27 00:39:32 2015 New Revision: 229400 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229400=gcc=rev Log: PR libffi/65441 * testsuite/lib/libffi.exp: Load

[Bug target/63346] xserver_xorg-server-1.15.1 crash on RaspberryPi when compiled with gcc-4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63346 --- Comment #3 from Peter Seiderer --- Created attachment 36593 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36593=edit Reduces test case from xserver_xorg-server-1.17.2/fb/fbpict.c Reduced (but not yet minimal) test case from the

[Bug fortran/66056] ICEs and endless compilation for lonely labels/numbers in type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056 lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/68065] Size calculations for VLAs can overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Cherepanov --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > This seems like a matter for -fsanitize=undefined UBSAN is intended to help with invalid programs but this code looks like valid. Hence

[Bug c/68104] New: ice in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68104 Bug ID: 68104 Summary: ice in vect_update_misalignment_for_peel with -O3 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #29 from Richard Henderson --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #27) > (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #25) > > So it would be nice to benchmark it. I'll try to do this on > > Friday. > > Practically every

[Bug fortran/66056] ICEs and endless compilation for lonely labels/numbers in type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66056 --- Comment #6 from lkrupp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: lkrupp Date: Mon Oct 26 19:18:08 2015 New Revision: 229390 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229390=gcc=rev Log: 2015-10-26 Louis Krupp PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/67609] [5/6 Regression] Generates wrong code for SSE2 _mm_load_pd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67609 --- Comment #30 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Richard Henderson from comment #29) > > > Ho hum. Sorry, Vlad, if I'd bothered bootstrapping I'd have seen this > myself. > Please change != to < in the patch to re-try. (That is, allow

[Bug fortran/67885] ICE on using parameter array in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67885 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |kargl at gcc dot

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 --- Comment #15 from Jürgen Reuter --- Here it it: {{{ module lexers implicit none private type :: template_t private character(256) :: charset1 integer :: len1 end type template_t contains subroutine match_quoted (tt,

[Bug libffi/65441] FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 --- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:01:37AM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 > > --- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter --- > Done, >

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 --- Comment #19 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 01:01:37AM +, juergen.reuter at desy dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 > > --- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter --- > Done, >

[Bug c/68065] Size calculations for VLAs can overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065 --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > The core issue is an overflow in size computations which is not limited to > VLA. > You can as easily get a crash with

[Bug c/68065] Size calculations for VLAs can overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065 --- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote: > > VLA size overflow, however, is undefined behavior at runtime, not compile > > time, hence a matter for ubsan. > > VLA size

[Bug c/68107] New: Non-VLA type whose size is half or more of the address space constructed via a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107 Bug ID: 68107 Summary: Non-VLA type whose size is half or more of the address space constructed via a pointer Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/68108] New: [6.0 regression] erroneous error message 'scalar integer expression expected'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108 Bug ID: 68108 Summary: [6.0 regression] erroneous error message 'scalar integer expression expected' Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 --- Comment #17 from Jürgen Reuter --- Done, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108

[Bug rtl-optimization/68106] New: c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-11.c FAILs with -flra-remat @ aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68106 Bug ID: 68106 Summary: c-c++-common/torture/builtin-arith-overflow-11.c FAILs with -flra-remat @ aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/68065] Size calculations for VLAs can overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Cherepanov --- On 2015-10-27 02:27, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68065 > > --- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> --- > On Mon, 26 Oct

[Bug libffi/65441] FAIL: libffi.call/float2.c -W -Wall -Wno-psabi (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65441 --- Comment #5 from John David Anglin --- Author: danglin Date: Tue Oct 27 00:41:31 2015 New Revision: 229401 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229401=gcc=rev Log: PR libffi/65441 * testsuite/lib/libffi.exp: Load

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug sanitizer/68016] ASan doesn't catch overflow in globals when COPY relocation is involved.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016 --- Comment #7 from Reid Kleckner --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Because symbol size is part of the ABI, and LLVM emits different symbol size > between -fsanitize=address and -fno-sanitize=address. > E.g. COPY relocations use

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 --- Comment #14 from Jürgen Reuter --- These changes seem to break our code. Will provide an example in a minute.

[Bug c/68107] Non-VLA type whose size is half or more of the address space constructed via a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68107 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- grokdeclarator seems to check the declared size of an array (when processing an array declarator) - that is, the size counted in array elements - and then has a separate check for the size

[Bug fortran/68108] [6.0 regression] erroneous error message 'scalar integer expression expected'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68108 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/68109] New: GCC fails to vectorize popcount on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68109 Bug ID: 68109 Summary: GCC fails to vectorize popcount on x86_64 Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug c/68110] New: __builtin_sub_overflow unsigned performance issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110 Bug ID: 68110 Summary: __builtin_sub_overflow unsigned performance issue Product: gcc Version: 5.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/68110] __builtin_sub_overflow unsigned performance issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64*-* i686-*-* Component|c

[Bug inline-asm/68095] "cc" clobber with Flag Output Operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68095 --- Comment #1 from David --- On further reflection, perhaps the best solution is even simpler. It is my understanding that the "cc" clobber is redundant. Internally, the flags are clobbered whether you set this or not. And I can't see how

[Bug target/68110] __builtin_sub_overflow unsigned performance issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68110 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- So the question is does anyone use this function without "a - b" later on? If not then it is just a microbenchmark of this code is showing the regression and I would say the microbenchmark is wrong.

[Bug c++/68103] New: Unnecessary copying due to order of evaluation with operator new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68103 Bug ID: 68103 Summary: Unnecessary copying due to order of evaluation with operator new Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug sanitizer/68099] arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham --- (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #2) > I actually believe this is a dup of PR66977, that was fixed by Marek quite > time ago. Could you try trunk compiler? "trunk compiler"? As in SVN trunk?

[Bug sanitizer/68099] arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Ben-Avraham --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1) > The gcc developers do not use crosstool, so providing us with a config for > it is of no help. Furthermore, un-preprocessed source means we are

[Bug sanitizer/68099] arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 --- Comment #5 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to Jonathan Ben-Avraham from comment #3) > (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #2) > > I actually believe this is a dup of PR66977, that was fixed by Marek quite > > time ago. Could you try

[Bug target/67716] [5] [SH]: Miscompiles libraw: Assembler: unaligned opcodes detected in executable segment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67716 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/68067] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong constant folding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68067 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Ok, so we transform a - (b - c) to (c - b) + a, that's invalid of course. This also started with GCC 4.3.0. negate_expr_p has case MINUS_EXPR: /* We can't turn -(A-B) into B-A when we honor

[Bug fortran/66927] [6 Regression] ICE in gfc_conf_procedure_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66927 --- Comment #13 from vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vehre Date: Mon Oct 26 13:03:22 2015 New Revision: 229353 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229353=gcc=rev Log: gcc/fortran/ChangeLog: 2015-10-26 Andre Vehreschild

[Bug tree-optimization/67794] [6 regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794 --- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Oct 26 14:36:43 2015 New Revision: 229367 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229367=gcc=rev Log: Also remap SSA_NAMEs of PARM_DECLs in IPA-SRA 2015-10-26 Martin Jambor

[Bug tree-optimization/67794] [6 regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67794 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor --- For the record, the patch got into trunk as revision r228654, I made a mistake in the ChangeLog tag and so it did not appear here. I am about to backport it to gcc 5.

[Bug target/65251] sh4: internal compiler error: Bus error when compiling cpp-netlib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65251 --- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo --- Adrian, any updates on this issue?

[Bug target/66312] [SH] Regression: Bootstrap failure gcc/d/ctfeexpr.dmd.o differs with gcc-4.8/4.9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66312 --- Comment #22 from Oleg Endo --- Adrian, any updates on this issue?

[Bug target/65251] sh4: internal compiler error: Bus error when compiling cpp-netlib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65251 --- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #3) > Adrian, any updates on this issue? One of the buildds is currently building a fresh gcc-5 snapshot. We'll just have to wait another 2 days, then I'll

[Bug sanitizer/68099] New: arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68099 Bug ID: 68099 Summary: arm-*-linux-gnueabihf -fsanitize=undefined warning: '' is used uninitialized in this function Product: gcc Version: 5.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/67528] Wrong result with defined assignment operator and/or parenthesized expressions and allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67528 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > AFAICT this PR is fixed after revision r229303. Well, this is not true with -O and above. If i compile the code with '-O0 -fsanitize=address,undefined' I get at run time pr67528.f90:17: runtime

[Bug target/66609] [sh] Relative address expressions bind at as-time, even if symbol is weak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66609 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/67968] go1: internal compiler error: in write_specific_type_functions, at go/gofrontend/types.cc:1812

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67968 --- Comment #10 from Dominik Vogt --- We cannot reproduce the crash on x86_64.

[Bug tree-optimization/68013] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in duplicate_thread_path, at tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:2469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Mon Oct 26 15:36:04 2015 New Revision: 229375 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229375=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH] [PR tree-optimization/68013] Make sure first block in FSM path is in

[Bug tree-optimization/68013] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in duplicate_thread_path, at tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:2469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/68101] Provide a way to allocate arrays aligned to 32 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug go/68072] malformed DWARF TagVariable entry

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072 --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor --- This is not a known bug. I wonder what is special about this package that it causes it to happen? I don't see anything new in GCC related to DW_AT_specification. I think the place to fix in the Go

[Bug tree-optimization/68013] [6 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu in duplicate_thread_path, at tree-ssa-threadupdate.c:2469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68013 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/68100] New: runtime segfault ARM boost::regex_replace -fsanitize=undefined member access within misaligned address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68100 Bug ID: 68100 Summary: runtime segfault ARM boost::regex_replace -fsanitize=undefined member access within misaligned address Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0

[Bug fortran/68101] New: Provide a way to allocate arrays aligned to 32 bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68101 Bug ID: 68101 Summary: Provide a way to allocate arrays aligned to 32 bytes Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug go/68072] malformed DWARF TagVariable entry

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- Created attachment 36588 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36588=edit Experimental fix The attached patch fixes the problem for us by skipping DW_TAG_variable DWARF info that only contains

[Bug go/68072] malformed DWARF TagVariable entry

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072 --- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt --- @comment 2 I can't see anything special that the file does: -- secp256.go -- package secp256k1 /* #cgo CFLAGS: -I./secp256k1 ... #include "./secp256k1/src/secp256k1.c" */ import "C" -- END -- Then in --

[Bug rtl-optimization/67443] [5/6 regression] DSE removes required store instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443 --- Comment #22 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Oct 26 15:24:45 2015 New Revision: 229372 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229372=gcc=rev Log: 2015-10-26 Richard Biener Dominik Vogt

[Bug rtl-optimization/67443] [5 regression] DSE removes required store instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67443 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/68055] ICE on using unsupported kinds in program without program statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68055 --- Comment #5 from Gerhard Steinmetz --- Sorry for answering late, but most of the time I am "offline" from several streams. Up to now I'm using mostly precompiled/configured packages from SUSE,

[Bug go/68072] malformed DWARF TagVariable entry

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68072 --- Comment #1 from Dominik Vogt --- It seems that the DWARF library is unable to handle DW_AT_specification: -- snip -- <1><7b4>: Abbrev Number: 27 (DW_TAG_variable) <7b5> DW_AT_specification: <0x8b> <7b9> DW_AT_decl_file : 13

[Bug sanitizer/68016] ASan doesn't catch overflow in globals when COPY relocation is involved.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016 Reid Kleckner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rnk at google dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug fortran/67177] MOVE_ALLOC not automatically allocating deferred character arrays in derived types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67177 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/67977] allocatable strings, array section reallocated - non-standard behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977 --- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Mon Oct 26 17:25:03 2015 New Revision: 229386 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229386=gcc=rev Log: 2015-10-26 Paul Thomas PR fortran/67177 PR

[Bug fortran/67977] allocatable strings, array section reallocated - non-standard behaviour

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67977 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/63469] Automatic reallocation of allocatable scalar length even when substring implicitly specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63469 --- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas --- This is now fixed on trunk and 5 branch by the patch for PR67177 and 67977. I will see later on if they apply cleanly to 4.9 branch. If so, I will commit. Paul

[Bug fortran/36192] ICE with wrong index types and bad parens

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36192 --- Comment #13 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Oct 26 17:39:07 2015 New Revision: 229387 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229387=gcc=rev Log: 2015-10-26 Steven G. Kargl PR

[Bug fortran/67933] [5/6 Regression] ICE for array of a derived type with allocatable class in derived type object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67933 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE|[5/6 Regression] ICE for

[Bug libgomp/66518] FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-42.c -DACC_DEVICE_TYPE_host_nonshm=1 -DACC_MEM_SHARED=0 output pattern test, is , should match \[[0-9a-fA-FxX]+,256\] is not m

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Mon Oct 26 16:24:17 2015 New Revision: 229378 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229378=gcc=rev Log: [PR libgomp/65437, libgomp/66518] Initialize runtime in acc_update_device,

[Bug libgomp/65437] acc_update_device and acc_update_self fail to initialize runtime.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65437 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Mon Oct 26 16:24:17 2015 New Revision: 229378 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229378=gcc=rev Log: [PR libgomp/65437, libgomp/66518] Initialize runtime in acc_update_device,

[Bug libgomp/66518] FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-42.c -DACC_DEVICE_TYPE_host_nonshm=1 -DACC_MEM_SHARED=0 output pattern test, is , should match \[[0-9a-fA-FxX]+,256\] is not m

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Mon Oct 26 16:24:28 2015 New Revision: 229379 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=229379=gcc=rev Log: [libgomp/66518] Resolve XFAIL in libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-3.c

[Bug libgomp/66518] FAIL: libgomp.oacc-c/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/lib-42.c -DACC_DEVICE_TYPE_host_nonshm=1 -DACC_MEM_SHARED=0 output pattern test, is , should match \[[0-9a-fA-FxX]+,256\] is not m

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66518 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/68016] ASan doesn't catch overflow in globals when COPY relocation is involved.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68016 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Reid Kleckner from comment #5) > (In reply to Maxim Ostapenko from comment #4) > > This happens because in LLVM case ASan changes symbols size ('f' in our > > case) and just breaks ABI for the

[Bug target/68102] [5/6 Regression] ICE: RTL check: expected code 'reg', have 'subreg' in rhs_regno, at rtl.h:1782 with float64x1_t @ aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68102 Zdenek Sojka changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target|

[Bug middle-end/65962] Missed vectorization of strided stores

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65962 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Created attachment 36589 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=36589=edit Vectorization dump for r229171

  1   2   >