[Bug fortran/71027] -fsanitize=address catches out of bounds access on assumed size array only with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/71028] [7 regression] ICE in redirect_jump, at jump.c:1560

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71028 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/71030] New: Strange segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030 Bug ID: 71030 Summary: Strange segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug c++/70796] [DR 1030] Initialization order with braced-init-lists still broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796 --- Comment #2 from TC --- It occurred to me that one issue here is whether initialization of the parameter object (of the constructor) is considered a "value computation [or] side effect associated with" an initializer-clause. If not, then the c

[Bug c/71030] Strange segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/71029] large fold expressions compile slowly with -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71029 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog Status|UNCONF

[Bug c/71013] [7 Regression] c-common.c:12810:37: error: 'LLONG_MAX' was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013 --- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2016-05-09 7:29 AM, John David Anglin wrote > LLONG_MAX is not defined in hpux11.11. It comes from fixed limits.h: > ./lib/gcc/hppa64-hp-hpux11.11/5.3.1/include-fixed/limits.h:# undef LLONG_M

[Bug c/71030] Strange segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030 --- Comment #2 from Mateusz Forc --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #1) > Please provide f.i. f.i is not generated using -save-temps, how am I supposed to get this file?

[Bug tree-optimization/71031] New: [7 Regression] ICE in extract_range_from_binary_expr_1, at tree-vrp.c:2535 w/ -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71031 Bug ID: 71031 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE in extract_range_from_binary_expr_1, at tree-vrp.c:2535 w/ -Os Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/71030] Strange segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71030 Mateusz Forc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/71014] associate statement inside omp parallel do appears to disable default private attribute for inner loop indices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014 --- Comment #6 from Keith Lindsay --- Harald, The problem does go away if I add a PRIVATE(i) clause to the OMP directive. However, my understanding of OpenMP in fortran is that all loop iteration variables, even inner nested loops, in an OpenMP

[Bug fortran/71032] New: explicit interface and must not have attributes generates gfortran: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6 (program f951)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71032 Bug ID: 71032 Summary: explicit interface and must not have attributes generates gfortran: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6 (program f951) Product: gcc Vers

[Bug fortran/71014] associate statement inside omp parallel do appears to disable default private attribute for inner loop indices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014 --- Comment #7 from Keith Lindsay --- The Linux system that I'm working on has multiple versions of gcc/gfortran installed. I've compiled and run my example program with different versions and have found the following: Versions 4.9.0, 4.9.1, 4.9

[Bug c/71033] New: Segmentation fault c + intel assembly, unable to use EBX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033 Bug ID: 71033 Summary: Segmentation fault c + intel assembly, unable to use EBX Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c/71033] Segmentation fault c + intel assembly, unable to use EBX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- x86 ABI requires that %ebx is preserved across function call. So, you need to save it to stack in f.s and restore it before function returs. Or, you can use %edx instead, which can be clobbered in function.

[Bug fortran/71027] -fsanitize=address catches out of bounds access on assumed size array only with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71027 --- Comment #2 from Vittorio Zecca --- Yes, you are right, and probably in real programs the subroutine would not be optimized away. Thank you for the explanation.

[Bug c/71033] Segmentation fault c + intel assembly, unable to use EBX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71033 Mateusz Forc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/69363] ICE when doing a pragma simd reduction with max

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69363 --- Comment #8 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: cesar Date: Mon May 9 20:23:31 2016 New Revision: 236047 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236047&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport trunk r235290: 2016-04-20 Ilya Verbin

[Bug fortran/71014] associate statement inside omp parallel do appears to disable default private attribute for inner loop indices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014 --- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf --- (In reply to Keith Lindsay from comment #6) > Harald, > > The problem does go away if I add a PRIVATE(i) clause to the OMP directive. > > However, my understanding of OpenMP in fortran is that all loop iter

[Bug middle-end/70626] bogus results in 'acc parallel loop' reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70626 --- Comment #6 from cesar at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: cesar Date: Mon May 9 20:42:47 2016 New Revision: 236049 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236049&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Backport trunk r235651: 2016-04-29 Cesar Philip

[Bug middle-end/70988] missing buffer overflow detection in chained strcat calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70988 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|missing buffer overflow |missing buffer overflow

[Bug tree-optimization/71034] New: abs(f) u>= 0. is always true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034 Bug ID: 71034 Summary: abs(f) u>= 0. is always true Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/71034] abs(f) u>= 0. is always true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is the optimizations that should be done: abs(x) < 0 -> x != x abs(x) >= 0 -> x u== x abs(x) == 0 -> x == 0 abs(x) <= 0 -> x == 0 (since this is an ordered comparison) abs(x) u< 0 -> false abs(x)

[Bug tree-optimization/71034] abs(f) u>= 0. is always true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71034 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I think this is the optimizations that should be done: > abs(x) < 0 -> x != x for x=NaN, abs(x) is NaN, and NaN<0 is false. So the current simplification to false

[Bug fortran/56226] Add support for DEC UNION and MAP extensions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226 --- Comment #30 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 02:55:01PM +, fritzoreese at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56226 > > --- Comment #29 from Fritz Reese --- > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from

[Bug target/70963] vec_cts/vec_ctf intrinsics produce wrong results for 64-bit floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- The xxswapd's are a bit of a red herring. These are part of the little-endian normalization code that are required with the funky lxvd2x and stxvd2x instructions. The problem appears to be the register assig

[Bug target/70957] testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-elemrev-4.c fails on power7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70957 --- Comment #9 from Bill Seurer --- Systems where I see it fail: granola yavin3 Systems where I do not: bns All are power7 BE systems. I didn't do anything special on any of the systems. I ran configure like this on all of them: /home/seurer

[Bug target/70963] vec_cts/vec_ctf intrinsics produce wrong results for 64-bit floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Note also that your asm constraints are wrong. You need VSX registers, not Altivec registers, so you should be using the "wa" constraint instead of the "v" constraint. This is why you get some apparently wro

[Bug c++/71035] New: GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal type in template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035 Bug ID: 71035 Summary: GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal type in template function Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug target/70963] vec_cts/vec_ctf intrinsics produce wrong results for 64-bit floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- OK, there is an obvious bug in the define_expand for vsx_xvcvdpsxds_scale. If the scale factor is 0, wrong code is always generated. I'll get a patch going.

[Bug fortran/71032] explicit interface and must not have attributes generates gfortran: internal compiler error: Abort trap: 6 (program f951)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71032 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/71014] associate statement inside omp parallel do appears to disable default private attribute for inner loop indices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71014 --- Comment #9 from Keith Lindsay --- Harald, Thanks for your tips on validation/sanitizing tools. I am not sufficiently fluent in standard-ese to know what 'associated do-loops(s)" means. It doesn't help that BLOCK and ASSOCIATE appear in othe

[Bug target/70947] regrename Go breakage on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70947 --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Mon May 9 23:12:20 2016 New Revision: 236052 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=236052&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [RS6000] Stop regrename twiddling with split-stack prologue PR targ

[Bug target/68945] enable libcilkrts on SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68945 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- > * In runtime/config/sparc/os-unix-sysdep.c (__cilkrts_getticks) I needed > different > 32- and 64-bit versions. I tested the result in standalone program which > just > printed the result. This looks

[Bug c++/71035] GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal type in template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Status|UNCONF

[Bug c/71013] [7 Regression] c-common.c:12810:37: error: 'LLONG_MAX' was not declared in this scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71013 --- Comment #4 from John David Anglin --- Created attachment 38460 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38460&action=edit Patch This fixes build failure on hppa64-hpux. Not sure its the right place or even right fix.

[Bug c++/71035] GNU does not give error on declaration of non literal type in template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71035 --- Comment #2 from Judy Ward --- Yes I have a beta copy of EDG 4.11 which has relaxed constexpr and they give an error. Unfortunately some Boost code (I think inadvertently) relies on not giving a diagnostic. Yes I see your point that this is

[Bug libstdc++/71036] New: create_directory(p, ...) reports a failure when 'p' is an existing directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71036 Bug ID: 71036 Summary: create_directory(p, ...) reports a failure when 'p' is an existing directory Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug libstdc++/71037] New: Exceptions thrown from "filesystem::canonical(...)" should contain both paths.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71037 Bug ID: 71037 Summary: Exceptions thrown from "filesystem::canonical(...)" should contain both paths. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug libstdc++/71038] New: copy_file(...) returns false on successful copy.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71038 Bug ID: 71038 Summary: copy_file(...) returns false on successful copy. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: li

[Bug tree-optimization/71039] New: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 5) w/ -O1 and above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71039 Bug ID: 71039 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 4 does not dominate use in block 5) w/ -O1 and above Product: gcc Version

[Bug tree-optimization/71040] New: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: invalid operand in unary operation; error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes) w/ -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71040 Bug ID: 71040 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: invalid operand in unary operation; error: incorrect sharing of tree nodes) w/ -O3 Product: gcc

[Bug target/70963] vec_cts/vec_ctf intrinsics produce wrong results for 64-bit floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70963 --- Comment #5 from Konstantinos Margaritis --- Ack, thanks for the heads up on VSX registers, it does print more reasonable results now.

<    1   2