[Bug target/71460] Copying structs can trap (on x86-32) due to SNaN to QNaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71460 --- Comment #27 from Alexander Cherepanov --- On 06/12/2016 01:09 AM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: >>> C11 does not >>> consider sNaNs, and TS 18661 is explicitly stating otherwise for them. >> >> You are talking about C11 + TS 18661

[Bug rtl-optimization/71532] [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 -O2 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- *** Bug 71531 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/71531] [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 -O2 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libfortran/48925] Code cleanup in write_float.def

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48925 --- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle --- Created attachment 38707 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38707=edit A preliminary patch This patch does a major reorganization of the code for writing formatted real numbers. Actual

[Bug libstdc++/71547] Error in std::result_of - fail if function returns pointer to function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71547 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/71545] [6/7 Regression] Incorrect irreflexive comparison debug check in std::lower_bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/71550] New: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

gcc version 7.0.0 20160615 (experimental) [trunk revision 237485] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -O2 small.c; ./a.out $ gcc-6.1 -O3 small.c; ./a.out $ $ gcc-trunk -O3 small.c $ ./a.out Segmentation fault (core dumped) $ --- int a = 3, b, c, f, g, h; unsigned d

[Bug c++/55203] No unused warning for variables of non-trivial types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55203 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Sergio Martins from comment #11) > Did the patch for [warn_unused] get in ? Yes: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C_002b_002b-Attributes.html

[Bug debug/71549] New: ICE on valid code at -O2 and -O3 with -g enabled in 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:5952

-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 7.0.0 20160615 (experimental) [trunk revision 237485] (GCC) $ $ gcc-trunk -m64 -Os -g small.c $ gcc-6.1 -m64

[Bug middle-end/66313] Unsafe factorization of a*b+a*c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66313 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse --- Does the patch still exist? Did it fail testing?

[Bug c++/71548] New: Invalid declaration involving template template param causes crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71548 Bug ID: 71548 Summary: Invalid declaration involving template template param causes crash Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/71547] New: Error in std::result_of - fail if function returns pointer to function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71547 Bug ID: 71547 Summary: Error in std::result_of - fail if function returns pointer to function Product: gcc Version: 5.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/71546] New: lambda capture fails with "was not declared in this scope"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71546 Bug ID: 71546 Summary: lambda capture fails with "was not declared in this scope" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/71545] Incorrect irreflexive comparison debug check in std::lower_bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545 Daniel Krügler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug c++/71534] Initializing a static constexpr data member of a base class by using a static constexpr data member of a derived class should be an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71534 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/67353] [avr] Option-ize Warning "appears to be a misspelled signal / interrupt handler"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Version|5.2.0

[Bug c++/71527] wrong type mismatch while template argument deduction/substitution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71527 --- Comment #1 from Benjamin Buch --- I simplified the example code: // Example == // A compile time int-type template < int I > struct size{}; // The problem: template < typename T, int N > void f(size< N

[Bug fortran/71544] gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 --- Comment #4 from noamb --- (In reply to noamb from comment #3) > However, presence of options that are invalid for > 4.9.3 in that list makes me think that perhaps the correct list of options > in that (moderately old) version is just

[Bug libstdc++/71545] New: Incorrect irreflexive comparison debug check in std::lower_bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71545 Bug ID: 71545 Summary: Incorrect irreflexive comparison debug check in std::lower_bound Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/71544] gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I do not observe correct behavior with the options that the previous comment > list s as being turned on by -O1 (this is on OS X 10.10, macports gfortran > 4.9.3): gfortran-fsf-5: error:

[Bug fortran/71544] gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 --- Comment #3 from noamb --- (In reply to noamb from comment #2) > I do not observe correct behavior with the options that the previous comment > list s as being turned on by -O1 (this is on OS X 10.10, macports gfortran > 4.9.3): Sorry -

[Bug target/71281] [7 Regression] ICE on gcc trunk on knl, wsm, ivb and bdw targets (tree-ssa-reassoc)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71281 Anton Mitrokhin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/71544] gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 noamb changed: What|Removed |Added CC||noamb at bollweevil dot gdbg.org --- Comment

[Bug c/71538] Obvious optimization related to arrays aren't performed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538 --- Comment #4 from sasho648 at gmail dot com --- More *shocking* example will be: struct tx { int a[6], b[6]; } *f(); void (main)() { int *p = f()->b; if(p == NULL) printf("What?"); } Compiling with "gcc

[Bug fortran/71412] iso_c_bindings and optimization interaction bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71412 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/71544] gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/71544] New: gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71544 Bug ID: 71544 Summary: gfortran compiler optimization bug when dealing with c-style pointers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/67353] [avr] Option-ize Warning "appears to be a misspelled signal / interrupt handler"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353 --- Comment #3 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: denisc Date: Wed Jun 15 16:43:35 2016 New Revision: 237487 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237487=gcc=rev Log: Correct Changelog entry: PR target/67353 *

[Bug target/67353] [avr] Option-ize Warning "appears to be a misspelled signal / interrupt handler"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67353 --- Comment #2 from denisc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: denisc Date: Wed Jun 15 16:40:07 2016 New Revision: 237486 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237486=gcc=rev Log: PR target/67353 * config/avr/avr.c (avr_set_current_function):

[Bug tree-optimization/71438] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu (by tree vectorizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71438 alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/71439] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in 32-bit and 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71439 alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||su at cs dot ucdavis.edu

[Bug middle-end/71529] [7 regression][CHKP] ICE in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71529 --- Comment #2 from Ilya Enkovich --- Author: ienkovich Date: Wed Jun 15 15:49:40 2016 New Revision: 237484 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237484=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ PR middle-end/71529 * ipa-chkp.c

[Bug tree-optimization/71483] [7 Regression] g++ ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with “Floating point exception”

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71483 alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/71483] [7 Regression] g++ ICE at -O3 on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu with “Floating point exception”

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71483 --- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: alahay01 Date: Wed Jun 15 15:45:47 2016 New Revision: 237483 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237483=gcc=rev Log: 2016-06-15 Alan Hayward gcc/ PR

[Bug bootstrap/71435] [7 regression] sparc bootstrap failure since r235625

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435 --- Comment #10 from Mikael Pettersson --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #9) > > Created attachment 38699 [details] > > Tentative fix. > > It successfully passed a full bootstrap/test cycle on SPARC/Solaris. I can test it on

[Bug c++/70202] ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in build_simple_base_path, at cp/class.c:579

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70202 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/70202] ICE on invalid code on x86_64-linux-gnu in build_simple_base_path, at cp/class.c:579

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70202 --- Comment #6 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Wed Jun 15 15:23:40 2016 New Revision: 237482 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237482=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2016-06-15 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/71543] New: [concepts] ICE on ill-formed declaration of a parameter with a constrained-type-specifier in a requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71543 Bug ID: 71543 Summary: [concepts] ICE on ill-formed declaration of a parameter with a constrained-type-specifier in a requires expression Product: gcc Version:

[Bug lto/71536] lto1 ICE: func-static constant in openmp offloaded function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71536 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/71532] [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 -O2 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug lto/71535] ICE in LTO1 with -fopenmp offloading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug bootstrap/71435] [7 regression] sparc bootstrap failure since r235625

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71435 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > Created attachment 38699 [details] > Tentative fix. It successfully passed a full bootstrap/test cycle on SPARC/Solaris.

[Bug rtl-optimization/71532] [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 -O2 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Simpler testcase: int foo (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int) __attribute__((pure)); int bar (int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int, int) __attribute__((pure)); int test (void) { int

[Bug middle-end/71488] [6/7 Regression] Wrong code for vector comparisons with ivybridge and westmere targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488 > > --- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich --- > Created attachment 38704 > -->

[Bug tree-optimization/71403] [7 Regression] wrong code (segfault) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71403 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71403 > > Jan Hubicka changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/71542] unhelpfull error for wrong initializer of initializer list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71542 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug middle-end/71488] [6/7 Regression] Wrong code for vector comparisons with ivybridge and westmere targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488 --- Comment #9 from Ilya Enkovich --- Created attachment 38704 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38704=edit Enable masks comparison with no new patterns Here is a version without additional patterns (mask conversion pattern

[Bug tree-optimization/71403] [7 Regression] wrong code (segfault) at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71403 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de --- Comment #10

[Bug c++/71542] New: unhelpfull error for wrong initializer of initializer list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71542 Bug ID: 71542 Summary: unhelpfull error for wrong initializer of initializer list Product: gcc Version: 6.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/71538] Obvious optimization related to arrays aren't performed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538 --- Comment #3 from sasho648 at gmail dot com --- But if it's NULL for the cast it'll invoke UB I believe. Shouldn't the optimizer assume that UB never occur?

[Bug c++/71541] destructor of condition_variable_any crashes with static linkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- You need to link to libpthread to use std::condition_variable_any.

[Bug middle-end/71488] [6/7 Regression] Wrong code for vector comparisons with ivybridge and westmere targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488 --- Comment #8 from Ilya Enkovich --- Created attachment 38703 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38703=edit Enable masks comparison using patterns (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #7) > > Sounds reasonable though

[Bug c++/71541] destructor of condition_variable_any crashes with static linkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541 --- Comment #2 from gcc_bugzilla at haphi dot de --- Created attachment 38702 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38702=edit preprocessed file of trivial repro case

[Bug tree-optimization/71439] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in 32-bit and 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71439 alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/71439] [7 Regression] wrong code at -O3 in 32-bit and 64-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71439 --- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: alahay01 Date: Wed Jun 15 10:53:01 2016 New Revision: 237476 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=237476=gcc=rev Log: 2016-06-15 Alan Hayward gcc/ PR

[Bug c++/71541] destructor of condition_variable_any crashes with static linkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541 --- Comment #1 from gcc_bugzilla at haphi dot de --- compiled with: > gcc -static -o trivial_repro_case trivial_repro_case.cpp > ./trivial_repro_case > Segmentation fault (core dumped) output of gcc -v: > Using built-in specs. > COLLECT_GCC=gcc

[Bug c++/71541] New: destructor of condition_variable_any crashes with static linkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71541 Bug ID: 71541 Summary: destructor of condition_variable_any crashes with static linkage Product: gcc Version: 6.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/37780] Conditional expression with __builtin_clz() should be optimized out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37780 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/71532] [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 -O2 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71532 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug middle-end/71531] [7 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/select_char_1.f90 -O2 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71531 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug middle-end/71533] -fdump-tree-fre1 hangs while printing an unnormal long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71533 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog Target|

[Bug libgcc/71540] Issue to building gcc-4.8.3 on ppc64le-redhat-linux platform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71540 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX

[Bug c/71538] Obvious optimization related to arrays aren't performed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71538 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- I don't think the C standard says that p cannot be a NULL pointer for this cast.

[Bug libgcc/71540] Issue to building gcc-4.8.3 on ppc64le-redhat-linux platform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71540 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgcc/71540] New: Issue to building gcc-4.8.3 on ppc64le-redhat-linux platform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71540 Bug ID: 71540 Summary: Issue to building gcc-4.8.3 on ppc64le-redhat-linux platform Product: gcc Version: 4.8.3 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/71509] Bitfield causes load hit store with larger store than load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71509 > > --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from

[Bug middle-end/71488] [6/7 Regression] Wrong code for vector comparisons with ivybridge and westmere targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 14 Jun 2016, ienkovich at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71488 > > --- Comment #6 from Ilya Enkovich --- > I think we should disable vectorization

[Bug target/71475] [5/6/7 Regression] Optimization of copying into long double looses bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71475 --- Comment #9 from Alexander Cherepanov --- On 2016-06-12 00:59, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote: >> Ok, what about this: > > This bug is closed as INVALID. No-one will pay any attention to comments > on a closed bug proposing different

[Bug target/71475] [5/6/7 Regression] Optimization of copying into long double looses bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71475 --- Comment #8 from Alexander Cherepanov --- Here is a more clear illustration that gcc treats this representation as a trap representation. The previous example could be explained by this representation being an alternative representation for