[Bug tree-optimization/69811] [5/6 Regression] A gcc folding issue at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69811 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Note that with 4.9 GENERIC still has if ((char *) "a" + 1 == 0B) but gimplification "simplifies" this to if (&MEM[(void *)"a" + 1B] == 0B) goto ; else goto ; which we eventually fold during CFG clean

[Bug tree-optimization/69811] [5/6 Regression] A gcc folding issue at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69811 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug tree-optimization/69801] [6 Regression] gcc ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in "operand_equal_p"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69801 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/69800] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr61034.C -std=gnu++98 scan-tree-dump-times optimized "free" 4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69800 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/69802] [4.9/5/6 Regression] gcc ICE at -O1 and above on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with “seg fault”

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69802 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/69804] [5/6] ICE with -fsanitize=undefined -fcheck-pointer-bounds -mmpx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69804 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug driver/69805] [6 Regression] ICE in greater_than_spec_func, at gcc.c:9722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69805 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/69806] [6 Regression][SH] Combine doesn't see constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69806 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug bootstrap/69791] ICE in ultimate_transparent_alias_target, at varasm.c:1263

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69791 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* --- Comment #1 from Richard

[Bug libstdc++/69794] [5/6 Regression] std::regex_search match failure with regex object with flags grep|icase

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69794 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug c/69796] [6 Regression] ICE on invalid code in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:83

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69796 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug c++/69797] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in operator[], at vec.h:714

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69797 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/69648] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O -mtune=winchip-c6 -fPIC -fexpensive-optimizations -msse4 @ i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69648 --- Comment #13 from Bernd Schmidt --- Author: bernds Date: Mon Feb 15 12:06:44 2016 New Revision: 233424 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233424&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Avoid removing sets of a pseudo PIC register in LRA. PR rtl-opt

[Bug c++/69534] [6 Regression] openjade is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69534 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/69752] Reload removing instruction with side-effect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69752 --- Comment #3 from Bernd Schmidt --- Author: bernds Date: Mon Feb 15 12:04:13 2016 New Revision: 233423 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233423&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Don't make something with an autoinc an equivalencing insn (PR69752).

[Bug tree-optimization/69811] A gcc folding issue at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69811 Bernd Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/69534] [6 Regression] openjade is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69534 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- We for example have tem_23->hasFinalizer_ = 1; ... MEM[(struct Object *)interp_8(D) + 16B].next_ = tem_23; MEM[(struct &)tem_23] ={v} {CLOBBER}; which means that tem_23 escapes through memory pointe

[Bug target/69671] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512vl-vpmovqb-1.c scan-assembler-times vpmovqb[ \\t]+[^{\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\n]*%xmm[0-9]+{%k[1-7]}{z}(?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #18) > Ok, if that's the case then we should XFAIL the gcc.target/arm/wmul-1.c and > gcc.target/arm/wmul-2.c tests and fix the AVX patterns for GCC 7 so that the > cse.c ch

[Bug target/69671] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512vl-vpmovqb-1.c scan-assembler-times vpmovqb[ \\t]+[^{\n]*%ymm[0-9]+[^\n]*%xmm[0-9]+{%k[1-7]}{z}(?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69671 --- Comment #18 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #17) > (In reply to ktkachov from comment #16) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15) > > > Yeah, my preference is to back out the cse.c one-lin

[Bug testsuite/69371] UNRESOLVED: special_functions/18_riemann_zeta/check_value.cc compilation failed to produce executable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69371 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0

[Bug c/69819] [4.9/5/6 Regression] ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in tree check: expected function_type or method_type, have array_type in function_args_iter_init, at tree.h:4536

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69819 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/69706] internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2246

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69706 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- It's a bug in the original implementation of the SPARC 64-bit calling conventions dating back to 1998: /* There's no need to check this_slotno < SPARC_FP_ARG_MAX. If it wasn't

[Bug target/68191] s390x Linux Split Stacks support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68191 --- Comment #3 from Marcin Kościelnicki --- All three patches (glibc, gold, gcc) have landed. Anything left to do here?

[Bug c++/69534] [6 Regression] openjade is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69534 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/69820] [6 Regression] Test miscompiled with -O3 option

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69820 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCO

[Bug tree-optimization/69823] New: 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 Bug ID: 69823 Summary: internal compiler error: in create_pw_aff_from_tree, at graphite-sese-to-poly.c:445 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug target/68273] [5/6 Regression] Wrong code on mips/mipsel due to (invalid?) peeking at alignments in function_arg.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68273 --- Comment #31 from Richard Biener --- eipa_sra introduces the remaining SSA name with non-default alignment via #0 make_ssa_name_fn (fn=0x768bb5e8, var=, stmt=) at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk3/gcc/tree-ssanames.c:311 #1 0x000

[Bug tree-optimization/69822] [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_rename, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:1202

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69822 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/69822] New: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_rename, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:1202

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69822 Bug ID: 69822 Summary: [6 Regression] internal compiler error: in get_rename, at graphite-isl-ast-to-gimple.c:1202 Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/69783] [6 Regression] Loop is not vectorized after r233212

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69783 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Feb 15 09:40:01 2016 New Revision: 233420 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233420&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-02-15 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/69783

[Bug lto/67709] ICE: in estimate_function_body_sizes, at ipa-inline-analysis.c:2489 on x86_64-apple-darwin*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67709 --- Comment #10 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- pinged: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg00964.html

[Bug lto/69655] [6 Regression] libgomp lto failures: segfault in cgraph_node::mark_force_output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69655 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug lto/69655] [6 Regression] libgomp lto failures: segfault in cgraph_node::mark_force_output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69655 --- Comment #4 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: vries Date: Mon Feb 15 09:30:31 2016 New Revision: 233419 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233419&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Don't mark offload symbols with force_output in ltrans 2016-02-

[Bug tree-optimization/69776] [4.9/5 Regression] Wrong optimization with aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||6.0 Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regress

[Bug tree-optimization/69776] [4.9/5/6 Regression] Wrong optimization with aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69776 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Feb 15 08:42:38 2016 New Revision: 233418 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233418&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2016-02-15 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/69776

[Bug other/69821] -fdebug-prefix-map doesn't affect gcc command line switches in DWARF DW_AT_producer.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69821 --- Comment #3 from hongxu jia --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Patches should be sent to gcc-patches@. Got it //Hongxu

<    1   2