[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Peter Bohning from comment #9) > No. I think you've misunderstood the problem and I mean I can't test it > because I don't have a computer now but.. No I am not misunderstanding the problem.

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #9 from Peter Bohning --- No. I think you've misunderstood the problem and I mean I can't test it because I don't have a computer now but.. Like I said I'm doing this to get the libstdc++ library for aarch64, I already am using

[Bug middle-end/82394] Pointer imposes an optimization barrier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82394 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c/82413] New: -O0 crash (ICE in decompose, at tree.h:5179)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82413 Bug ID: 82413 Summary: -O0 crash (ICE in decompose, at tree.h:5179) Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/68230] Unused function parameters not reported by -Wunused-parameter when only used recursively.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68230 --- Comment #8 from Joshua T, Fisher --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Joshua T, Fisher from comment #5) > > and my blog where I first encountered this in a closed source codebase: > > > >

[Bug c/81854] weak alias of an incompatible symbol accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81854 --- Comment #17 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Mon Oct 2 23:57:19 2017 New Revision: 253372 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253372=gcc=rev Log: Clean up more fallout from r252976. libatomic/ChangeLog: 2017-10-02 Martin Sebor

[Bug c++/70570] Assembler error "symbol already defined" from nested lambdas and function-static variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70570 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|ndkrempel

[Bug c++/70570] Assembler error "symbol already defined" from nested lambdas and function-static variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70570 --- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Oct 2 22:21:16 2017 New Revision: 253370 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253370=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/79590] ICE (internal compiler error) in nothrow_spec_p with generic lambda and `noexcept(noexcept(...))` expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79590 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/79590] ICE (internal compiler error) in nothrow_spec_p with generic lambda and `noexcept(noexcept(...))` expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79590 --- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Oct 2 22:02:03 2017 New Revision: 253369 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253369=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 79005, which changed state. Bug 79005 Summary: Use of a captured variable within nested generic lambdas provokes internal compiler error. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005 What|Removed

[Bug c++/79005] Use of a captured variable within nested generic lambdas provokes internal compiler error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|mmccutcheon

[Bug testsuite/82412] New: [8 regression] gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42334-1.f fails starting with r253342

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82412 Bug ID: 82412 Summary: [8 regression] gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42334-1.f fails starting with r253342 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/79005] Use of a captured variable within nested generic lambdas provokes internal compiler error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79005 --- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Oct 2 21:44:55 2017 New Revision: 253368 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253368=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug target/82411] const is not always read-only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/81357] Extra mov for zero extend of add

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357 --- Comment #12 from Qing Zhao --- > Well it is not wrong, just non-optimal. It is possible to use a single > register > here but it means teaching GCC that these values are identical, which is > non-trivial as it likely affects various places

[Bug target/82411] const is not always read-only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Actually it is just undefined what happens when a write to a const variable. So a trap or the write happened for a const both are valid thing. Now const really should be put in the read only section if

[Bug c/82411] New: const is not always read-only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82411 Bug ID: 82411 Summary: const is not always read-only Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #8 from Peter Bohning --- Well I guess, that seems strange that one would ever actually want to do that. But it sounds great that it supports such things. Anyway, I will try --target but my laptop just completely died. Says

[Bug c++/82410] ICE in replace_placeholders_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added CC|tomilovanatoliy at yandex dot ru |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ada/82384] [8 Regression] s-taprop.adb failed to compile for x32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ada/82384] [8 Regression] s-taprop.adb failed to compile for x32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- Thanks for reporting the problem.

[Bug ada/82384] [8 Regression] s-taprop.adb failed to compile for x32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Mon Oct 2 19:38:06 2017 New Revision: 253366 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253366=gcc=rev Log: PR ada/82384 * libgnarl/s-linux__x32.ads (suseconds_t): New

[Bug c++/82410] New: ICE in replace_placeholders_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410 Bug ID: 82410 Summary: ICE in replace_placeholders_r Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/82409] Superflous pxor instructions in the generated assembly.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82409 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82409] Superflous pxor instructions in the generated assembly.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82409 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

[Bug fortran/82312] [7/8 Regression] Pointer assignment to component of class variable results wrong vptr for the variable.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82312 --- Comment #3 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Mon Oct 2 18:17:39 2017 New Revision: 253362 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253362=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-02 Paul Thomas PR fortran/82312 *

[Bug tree-optimization/82337] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption at tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82337] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption at tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337 --- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Oct 2 18:10:40 2017 New Revision: 253361 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253361=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/82337] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption at tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337 --- Comment #14 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Oct 2 18:09:20 2017 New Revision: 253360 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253360=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/82337] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption at tree-ssa-coalesce.c:1010

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82337 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Mon Oct 2 18:07:45 2017 New Revision: 253359 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253359=gcc=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-10-02 Bill Schmidt Backport

[Bug target/82358] [8 regression] i386/stack-check-11.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82358 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/82409] New: Superflous pxor instructions in the generated assembly.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82409 Bug ID: 82409 Summary: Superflous pxor instructions in the generated assembly. Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/82390] gcc.dg/torture tests run with same optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82390 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- dg-options is absolutely fine in torture directories, as long as the options specified are not among the -O options that the test should be looping over. For example, it's fine for a

[Bug fortran/25829] [F03] Asynchronous IO support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829 --- Comment #28 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Nicolas Koenig from comment #27) > program main > implicit none > open (10, file='foo.dat', asynchronous='yes') > call s() > close(10) > contains > subroutine s() >

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #6 from Peter Bohning --- Well I can't say I understand why the host and the target would ever be different, but are you saying that I need to add another flag for something? I mean I never set the target, so it can't determine the

[Bug target/80210] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311 on ppc64 for with __builtin_pow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Gcc has three different triplets. Host Build Target Host is where the newly compiled compiler will run on. Build is where you are building Target is what processor the compiler is targeting.

[Bug tree-optimization/82363] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- I have proposed a fix on the mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-10/msg00070.html

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #4 from Peter Bohning --- Is that really it? I saw a warning about that but... I assumed BUILD was the build machine and HOST was the target?

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- So you are trying to compile a compiler that is hosted on aarch64-linux-gnu but targeting the target on what you are building on?

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bohning --- export CFLAGS="-Wl,--sysroot=$SYSROOT -I$SYSROOT/../gcc-7.2.0/include -I$SYSROOT/include -I$SYSROOT/usr/include" export CC_FOR_TARGET="$CROSS_COMPILE"gcc export GCC_FOR_TARGET="$CROSS_COMPILE"gcc export

[Bug target/80210] ICE in in extract_insn, at recog.c:2311 on ppc64 for with __builtin_pow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80210 --- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner --- Author: bergner Date: Mon Oct 2 16:56:58 2017 New Revision: 253358 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253358=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ PR target/80210 * config/rs6000/rs6000.c

[Bug target/82408] cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82381] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: qsort checking failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42286|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/82408] New: cross-compiling for arm64 problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 Bug ID: 82408 Summary: cross-compiling for arm64 problems Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug middle-end/82407] [8 Regression][meta-bug] qsort_chk fallout tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||meta-bug Component|other

[Bug rtl-optimization/82396] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Eric

[Bug testsuite/82390] gcc.dg/torture tests run with same optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82390 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42279|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/82386] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault on 32-bit powerpc BE targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- I like that last patch. Pre-approved if it works :-) Thanks!

[Bug ada/82384] [8 Regression] s-taprop.adb failed to compile for x32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42277|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/79768] `-Wmaybe-uninitialized' false positive with optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79768 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Understood on your hardware limitations. You could certainly do bisection work on the compile farm. Again, thanks for your work on cleaning up some of this old stuff.

[Bug tree-optimization/82387] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu in 64-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82387 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Oct 2 15:44:10 2017 New Revision: 253356 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253356=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/82387 PR tree-optimization/82388 PR

[Bug tree-optimization/82389] [8 Regression] ICE on valid code on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82389 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Oct 2 15:44:10 2017 New Revision: 253356 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253356=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/82387 PR tree-optimization/82388 PR

[Bug tree-optimization/82388] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82388 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Oct 2 15:44:10 2017 New Revision: 253356 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253356=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/82387 PR tree-optimization/82388 PR

[Bug testsuite/82390] gcc.dg/torture tests run with same optimization level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82390 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 42287 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42287=edit tentative patch

[Bug other/82407] New: [8 Regression][meta-bug] qsort_chk fallout tracking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82407 Bug ID: 82407 Summary: [8 Regression][meta-bug] qsort_chk fallout tracking Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-checking Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/82364] [7 Regression] Enormous memory usage when building for 32bit i386 with >= -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82364 Adrian Bunk changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7 Regression] Enormous |[7 Regression] Enormous

[Bug tree-optimization/82381] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: qsort checking failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/82397] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1 in vect_analyze_data_ref_accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82397 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/82406] [7 Regression] Rejects a valid snippet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82406 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/82381] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: qsort checking failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Richard, this is something you've suggested in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01871.html To answer my question from: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-05/msg01873.html the bb_rank can be

[Bug target/81357] Extra mov for zero extend of add

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357 --- Comment #11 from Wilco --- (In reply to Qing Zhao from comment #10) > the following is my conclusion on this bug based on previous discussion and > study, for this testing case: > > 1. due to the fact that "mov" and "uxtw" are the same

[Bug translation/80188] calls.c: reason argument to maybe_complain_about_tail_call must be marked for translation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80188 nik changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug c++/82406] [7 Regression] Rejects a valid snippet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82406 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2017-10-2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/82406] New: [7 Regression] Rejects a valid snippet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82406 Bug ID: 82406 Summary: [7 Regression] Rejects a valid snippet Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/82396] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396 --- Comment #2 from Wilco --- I've got a simple patch that fixes the AArch64 bootstrap failure. This should fix ARM as well.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82396] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

ed from /opt/gcc/gcc-20171002/Build/aarch64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/deque:66:0, from /opt/gcc/gcc-20171002/Build/aarch64-suse-linux/libstdc++-v3/include/stack:60, from ../../../../../libstdc++-v3/src/filesystem/ops.cc:32: /opt/gcc/gcc-20171002/Build/aarch6

[Bug target/81357] Extra mov for zero extend of add

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357 --- Comment #10 from Qing Zhao --- the following is my conclusion on this bug based on previous discussion and study, for this testing case: 1. due to the fact that "mov" and "uxtw" are the same instruction, the assembly generated by -O1 and

[Bug target/82386] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault on 32-bit powerpc BE targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42285 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42285=edit gcc8-pr82386.patch This patch implements the latter option.

[Bug rtl-optimization/82396] qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 4 in ready_sort_real in haifa scheduler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82405] New: Function not inlined for switch and suboptimal assembly is generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 Bug ID: 82405 Summary: Function not inlined for switch and suboptimal assembly is generated Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/82404] Unnecessary instructions in switch table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Oh this has to be c++ because of enum class. So gcc just does not use the undefinedness here.

[Bug middle-end/82404] Unnecessary instructions in switch table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug tree-optimization/82363] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- I'm testing the following fix: diff --git a/gcc/tree-sra.c b/gcc/tree-sra.c index f5675edc7f1..bac593951e7 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-sra.c +++ b/gcc/tree-sra.c @@ -2691,7 +2691,7 @@

[Bug target/82386] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault on 32-bit powerpc BE targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- So one option is to defer the splitting after we've processed the whole this_basic_block, like: --- combine.c.jj2017-09-15 17:53:28.0 +0200 +++ combine.c 2017-10-02 15:43:53.102116326 +0200

[Bug fortran/82375] PDT components in PDT declarations fail to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82375 --- Comment #4 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 42284 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42284=edit Provisional patch for the PR I need to do a bit more to complete this fix in order that allocatable components are

[Bug target/82404] New: Unnecessary instructions in switch table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 Bug ID: 82404 Summary: Unnecessary instructions in switch table Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug rtl-optimization/82398] error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 2 in fill_vec_av_set at gcc/sel-sched.c:3725

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82398 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/82402] [5/6/7/8 Regression] error: SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402 --- Comment #3 from Bernd Edlinger --- The leaf attribute seems to make a difference, before my patch the compiler assumed returns_twice + leaf, but that may be unsafe for free standing environment. the crash goes away if the header file adds

[Bug tree-optimization/82402] [5/6/7/8 Regression] error: SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Bernd Edlinger from comment #1) > Martin, try this modified test case: > > cat ice.c > typedef int jmp_buf[1]; > > extern exit(int) __attribute__((__noreturn__)); > extern int setjmpx(jmp_buf)

[Bug target/82386] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault on 32-bit powerpc BE targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82386 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/82402] [5/6/7/8 Regression] error: SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402 --- Comment #1 from Bernd Edlinger --- Martin, try this modified test case: cat ice.c typedef int jmp_buf[1]; extern exit(int) __attribute__((__noreturn__)); extern int setjmpx(jmp_buf) __attribute__((__returns_twice__)); jmp_buf jbAnagram;

[Bug tree-optimization/82363] [8 Regression] wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82363 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/71386] Wrong code on c++14 (GCC trunk)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 71386, which changed state. Bug 71386 Summary: Wrong code on c++14 (GCC trunk) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 79180, which changed state. Bug 79180 Summary: Nested lambda-capture causes segfault for parameter pack https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79180 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/79180] Nested lambda-capture causes segfault for parameter pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79180 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/82394] Pointer imposes an optimization barrier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82394 --- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin --- Used -O2 flag

[Bug c++/71386] Wrong code on c++14 (GCC trunk)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71386 --- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Oct 2 12:40:26 2017 New Revision: 253350 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253350=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug c++/79180] Nested lambda-capture causes segfault for parameter pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79180 --- Comment #5 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Oct 2 12:40:26 2017 New Revision: 253350 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253350=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-02 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug target/82403] New: [openacc, nvptx] Optimize binary shuffle tree

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82403 Bug ID: 82403 Summary: [openacc, nvptx] Optimize binary shuffle tree Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/82402] New: [5/6/7/8 Regression] error: SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82402 Bug ID: 82402 Summary: [5/6/7/8 Regression] error: SSA_NAME_OCCURS_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI should be set Product: gcc Version: unknown URL:

[Bug rtl-optimization/82398] error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 2 in fill_vec_av_set at gcc/sel-sched.c:3725

t for excess errors) /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20171002/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr57861.c:33:1: error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1 during RTL pass: mach /usr/local/gcc/gcc-20171002/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr57861.c:33:1: internal compiler error: qsort che

[Bug c++/82401] New: error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1 in insert_late_enum_def_bindings on an invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82401 Bug ID: 82401 Summary: error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1 in insert_late_enum_def_bindings on an invalid code Product: gcc Version: unknown Status:

[Bug target/82400] [openacc, nvptx] Use ptx atomic operators for reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82400 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0) > The scheme is the same for all operators, using the compare-and-swap atomic > ptx instruction (atom.cas). > > However, some of the operators are supported

[Bug target/82400] New: [openacc, nvptx] Use ptx atomic operators for reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82400 Bug ID: 82400 Summary: [openacc, nvptx] Use ptx atomic operators for reductions Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug ada/82393] Compilation error on cygwin64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82393 --- Comment #2 from Didier G --- Not tested but rtinit.c should be checked too.

[Bug other/67165] please enable libbacktrace to work with compressed debug sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67165 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge --- Author: tschwinge Date: Mon Oct 2 11:56:39 2017 New Revision: 253345 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253345=gcc=rev Log: libbacktrace: Support the case that clock_gettime is in librt

  1   2   >