[Bug bootstrap/82037] powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu bootstrap breaks in stage2 with gcc/liblto_plugin.so: wrong ELF class: ELFCLASS64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82037 --- Comment #7 from Dennis Clarke --- At this point I don't see what the real issue is here on powerpc64. The configuration stage runs fine but everything fails in stage1 because the wrong ELF class is being used. Really the entire compiler

[Bug target/82420] New: ICE with -malign-int and -m68000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82420 Bug ID: 82420 Summary: ICE with -malign-int and -m68000 Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug fortran/82419] Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82419 --- Comment #5 from J Zorrilla --- Yes, the same code compiled using ifort (I guess I don't know if any flags in the Makefile could relax the checks it was doing). Removing those parentheses allowed the the code to compile. Thank you both very

[Bug target/82370] AVX512 can use a memory operand for immediate-count vpsrlw, but gcc doesn't.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82370 --- Comment #3 from Peter Cordes --- Doesn't change the performance implications, but I just realized I have the offset-load backwards. Instead of vpsrlw $8, (%rsi), %xmm1 vpand 15(%rsi), %xmm2, %xmm0 this algorithm should

[Bug target/82370] AVX512 can use a memory operand for immediate-count vpsrlw, but gcc doesn't.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82370 --- Comment #2 from Peter Cordes --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Created attachment 42296 [details] > gcc8-pr82370.patch > > If VPAND is exactly as fast as VPANDQ except for different encodings, then > maybe we can do

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Peter Bohning from comment #11) > >> And as I recall, "target" defaults to "host". > > >It does not. Read > >https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html > > As I recall "--target" defaults to

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 68584, which changed state. Bug 68584 Summary: nested generic lambda with trailing return type cases compiler crash https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68584 What|Removed

[Bug c++/68584] nested generic lambda with trailing return type cases compiler crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68584 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 70343, which changed state. Bug 70343 Summary: internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, wrong code with lambda in template fn https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70343 What|Removed

[Bug c++/70343] internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, wrong code with lambda in template fn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70343 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|tower120 at

[Bug c++/70343] internal compiler error: in tsubst_copy, wrong code with lambda in template fn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70343 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue Oct 3 21:15:56 2017 New Revision: 253388 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253388=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-03 Paolo Carlini PR

[Bug target/82418] Division on a constant is suboptimal because of not using imul instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- If I time it, gcc's code is several times faster than clang's on skylake. Why is clang's version supposed to be better?

[Bug c++/59944] lambda in templated method body for method with default template value and lambda parameter causes error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59944 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|balint at

[Bug c++/60228] ICE using lambda in #pragma omp declare reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60228 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/82417] Macros from defined in C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82417 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Thinking about this further, I think we must not include at all > for strict -std=c++1* modes, Yes. Can we get a #warning in that case which explains that

[Bug fortran/82064] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] multiple incompatible definitions of extended derived type via module use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064 --- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #7) > ... which indeed fixes the issue with 'test_sep'. (Note: I have not > regtested it yet, but I hope it will not break anything.) To the contrary, it

[Bug target/81356] __builtin_strcpy is not good for copying an empty string on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356 --- Comment #6 from Qing Zhao --- just found that a similar fix have been submitted 2 weeks ago to gcc_patches: https://www.mail-archive.com/gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org/msg173652.html

[Bug target/81356] __builtin_strcpy is not good for copying an empty string on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356 --- Comment #5 from Qing Zhao --- the following code in config/aarch64/aarch64.c cause such behavior: 14143 static bool 14144 aarch64_use_by_pieces_infrastructure_p (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT size, 14145

[Bug target/42159] unwinding issues on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159 --- Comment #38 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Niklas Hauser from comment #37) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #36) > Did you apply your patch to trunk only? I didn't find it in the GCC 7 branch. > Would you consider back porting

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82408 --- Comment #11 from Peter Bohning --- >> And as I recall, "target" defaults to "host". >It does not. Read >https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html As I recall "--target" defaults to [HOST] if you do "./configure --help". I can't double

[Bug fortran/82419] Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82419 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > since it compiled on a different system ... Are you sure of that? If yes, the compiler was not behaving according the standard. I suspect that the original code was something such as

[Bug fortran/82419] Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82419 --- Comment #3 from J Zorrilla --- I apologize for not providing a self-contained code. I am trying to use code previously developed, and since it compiled on a different system I thought it may be the compiler, not the code (I'm rather

[Bug fortran/82419] Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82419 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- (dat(1:cn,n)) is not a variable, but an expression. Remove the enclosing parentheses and your code will compile. BTW the provided code needs a some more surgery in order to be compiled (dlc not

[Bug fortran/82419] Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82419 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/82419] New: Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82419 Bug ID: 82419 Summary: Error: Expected variable in READ statement in (1) Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[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 #6 from sellcey at cavium dot com --- On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 16:35 +, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82396 > > --- Comment #5 from Wilco --- > (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment

[Bug target/82418] New: Division on a constant is suboptimal because of not using imul instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82418 Bug ID: 82418 Summary: Division on a constant is suboptimal because of not using imul instruction Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[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 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82358 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Tue Oct 3 17:09:54 2017 New Revision: 253385 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253385=gcc=rev Log: PR target/82358 * gcc.target/i386/stack-check-11.c: Use

[Bug target/82370] AVX512 can use a memory operand for immediate-count vpsrlw, but gcc doesn't.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82370 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 42296 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42296=edit gcc8-pr82370.patch If VPAND is exactly as fast as VPANDQ except for different encodings, then maybe we can do

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- So it means maybe llvm performs more advanced switchconv in this case, at least judging from the #c0 assembly snippet. We look solely for PHIs which have arguments SSA_NAMEs initialized in the cases to

[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 #5 from Wilco --- (In reply to Steve Ellcey from comment #4) > Has the patch been(In reply to Wilco from comment #2) > > I've got a simple patch that fixes the AArch64 bootstrap failure. This > > should fix ARM as well. > > Has this

[Bug target/42159] unwinding issues on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159 --- Comment #37 from Niklas Hauser --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #36) > The underlying issue is understood and we've worked around it to for the > case of "-static-libgcc" [PR80556]. Oh, we worked on this at the same time. The bug

[Bug target/81356] __builtin_strcpy is not good for copying an empty string on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356 Qing Zhao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com --- Comment #4

[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 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381 Steve Ellcey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #8 from Antony Polukhin --- Yes, in the isolated test case constants are first: static inline double eval_square2(double r) { return 4 * r * r; } static inline double eval_circle2(double r) { return 3.1415 * r * r; } double

[Bug libstdc++/82417] Macros from defined in C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82417 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/78290] Gfortran incorrectly creates a copy of an array passed to an array pointer dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78290 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug libstdc++/82417] Macros from defined in C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82417 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0) > The C++11 standard says that should just include the C++ > header and completely ignore the C library's header. I am very surprised that nobody has cared

[Bug rtl-optimization/77729] aarch64 inserts unneeded uxtb after ldrb, orr ...32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77729 --- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool --- Author: segher Date: Tue Oct 3 16:02:38 2017 New Revision: 253384 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253384=gcc=rev Log: simplify-rtx: Remove non-simplifying simplification (PR77729) If we have

[Bug libstdc++/59087] Issues including complex.h in C++11/1y mode because of C's complex.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely --- Marc, I've just opened Bug 82417 as rejects-valid but I suppose it's really a dup of this one. (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13) > C++ code has 0 reason to include complex.h, only C code does,

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81357 --- Comment #13 from Qing Zhao --- I checked the same testing case on X86, SPARC in addition to aarch64, all have the same issue: (compile with gcc -O, the default is -m64) ***x86: test1: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc leal1(%rdi),

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Multiply binds left to right. That is a * b * c is the same as (a * b) * c and not the same as A * (b * c).

[Bug fortran/80118] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE with zero size parameter array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80118 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Tue Oct 3 15:50:45 2017 New Revision: 253383 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253383=gcc=rev Log: 2017-10-03 Thomas Koenig Steven G. Kargl

[Bug libstdc++/82417] Macros from defined in C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82417 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #6 from Antony Polukhin --- > And I don't think you can reassociate here validly unless -ffast-math. But you can. In the isolated test case, instead of getting r*r at first, just move the constant into the xmm1 first and after that

[Bug libstdc++/82417] New: Macros from defined in C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82417 Bug ID: 82417 Summary: Macros from defined in C++11 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal Priority: P3

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25829 --- Comment #29 from Thomas Koenig --- Another thing... if we do WRITE (10, ASYNCHRONOUS="YES") A we need to mark A as ASYNCHRONOUS which we will probably have to treat similar (or identically) to VOLATILE.

[Bug c++/81042] Too many constexpr interations on unreachable loop.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81042 Valentine changed: What|Removed |Added CC||v at vsamko dot com --- Comment #3 from

[Bug fortran/82064] [7/8 Regression] [OOP] multiple incompatible definitions of extended derived type via module use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82064 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4) > The permanent fix is to make sure that the vtables get produced > unconditionally for module derived types. This is accomplished by the following patch

[Bug libfortran/79540] [7/8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_fw_d.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Could you please post the result of call verify_fmt(100.0) end ! loop through values for w, d subroutine verify_fmt(x) real, intent(in) :: x integer :: w, d character(len=80) :: str,

[Bug c++/82414] [5 Regression] Issue with ODR/LTO in G++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82414 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > Isolated test-case where we do not reassociate expressions: > > And I don't think you can reassociate here validly unless -ffast-math. Yep, you're right. With

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- > Isolated test-case where we do not reassociate expressions: And I don't think you can reassociate here validly unless -ffast-math.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Isolated test-case where we do not reassociate expressions: $ cat pr82405-reduced2.c static inline double eval_square(double r) { return r * r * 4; } static inline double eval_circle(double r) { return r * r

[Bug c/82413] [8 Regression] -O0 crash (ICE in decompose, at tree.h:5179)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82413 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #3) > I'm always willing to take the blame for things I've broken ;-) but... > > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > > Confirmed, started with r253345. > >

[Bug fortran/56789] Wrong code with contiguous dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56789 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|tkoenig at gcc

[Bug c++/82373] syntax error in error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82373 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libfortran/79540] [7/8 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/fmt_fw_d.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540 --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2017-10-01 7:33 AM, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79540 > > --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Could you please uncomment the

[Bug fortran/52162] Bogus -fcheck=bounds with realloc on assignment to unallocated LHS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52162 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Anything I can do to help?

[Bug target/82361] Useless "mov eax, eax" in generated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82361 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug fortran/69604] ICE in gfc_add_modify_loc, at fortran/trans.c:159

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69604 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The patch in comment 7 no longer applies: 'ts.type == BT_DERIVED' has been replaced with 'ts.type == BT_DERIVED'. Updating the patch along this line does not remove the ICE!-(

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/66681] [Coarray] Wrong result in assigning this_image() to a complex coarray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66681 --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I will do that business as long a somebody explains to me why one might > ever want to store the value returned by this_image() as a complex :-) If this is legal, why not?

[Bug c/82413] [8 Regression] -O0 crash (ICE in decompose, at tree.h:5179)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82413 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/50410] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE in record_reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410 --- Comment #29 from Dominique d'Humieres --- Created attachment 42294 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42294=edit Patch to fix the regressions caused by the patch in comment 8

[Bug fortran/50410] [5/6/7/8 Regression] ICE in record_reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50410 --- Comment #28 from Dominique d'Humieres --- I have revisited the draft patch in comment 8 and it fixes all the ICEs, but those in comment 23. The last two of them emit now in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:934 libbacktrace could not

[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 #6 from Martin Jambor --- Fixed.

[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 #5 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Tue Oct 3 11:43:45 2017 New Revision: 253380 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253380=gcc=rev Log: [PR 82363] Fix thinko in SRA subaccess propagation 2017-10-03 Martin Jambor

[Bug hsa/82416] HSA BE does not honor TREE_PRECISION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82416 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug hsa/82416] New: HSA BE does not honor TREE_PRECISION

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82416 Bug ID: 82416 Summary: HSA BE does not honor TREE_PRECISION Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: hsa

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82381 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Oct 3 11:24:39 2017 New Revision: 253379 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253379=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/82381 * tree-ssa-reassoc.c

[Bug tree-optimization/82374] #pragma GCC optimize is not applied to openmp-generated functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82374 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82358 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- SLM prefers: lea -0x1000(%rsp),%rsp over sub 0x1000, %rsp Adding -mtune=generic should fix it.

[Bug target/42159] unwinding issues on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #36

[Bug fortran/80666] character length parameter fails if declaration order incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82384 --- Comment #13 from Pierre-Marie de Rodat --- Yes, and thank you Eric for checking the fix in. :-)

[Bug target/42159] unwinding issues on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42159 Niklas Hauser changed: What|Removed |Added CC||niklas.hauser at arm dot com ---

[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 #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Oct 3 09:49:37 2017 New Revision: 253378 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253378=gcc=rev Log: PR target/82386 * combine.c (combine_instructions): Don't combine

[Bug c++/82410] [7/8 Regression] ICE in replace_placeholders_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410 --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini --- Thanks. Better leaving Marek in CC anyway ;)

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82358 --- Comment #3 from Andrey Guskov --- This is my gcc -v: Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: source/configure

[Bug testsuite/82415] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/naked-1.c scan-assembler-not ret

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 42291 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42291=edit Tentative patch

[Bug fortran/80666] character length parameter fails if declaration order incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80666 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Yes I would object to closing it. > This issue has a large impact on significant bodies of legacy code > in our institute. Common! How many of such errors do you see now? > I understand that you

[Bug target/82175] [8 Regression] -march=native fails on armv7 big/little system armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf with gcc 8.0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82175 --- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw --- I've looked into this, I don't think there's anything to worry about. The printed options seem to take some of the command-line and other option processing into account before printing out the results,

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Clang's transformation is not based on the valid values of the enumeration, but the fact that there's a missing return statement, so if you call it with an argument that isn't one of the cases it's UB. The

[Bug testsuite/82415] New: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/naked-1.c scan-assembler-not ret

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82415 Bug ID: 82415 Summary: FAIL: gcc.target/i386/naked-1.c scan-assembler-not ret Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: trivial Priority: P3

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c++/82414] New: Issue with ODR/LTO in G++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82414 Bug ID: 82414 Summary: Issue with ODR/LTO in G++ Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > I can work on that, Andrew can you point to differences in between C and C++ > differences of enum values? Scoper enumeration is here answer I guess.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- I can confirm in C, clang adds guard checks: $ cat pr82405-2.c enum eShape { eSquare, eCircle, eShpere, eTetraeder }; double test_switch_native(enum eShape shape, double r) { switch(shape) { case

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82404 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- > Having a simpler test-case: > $ cat pr82405-2.c > enum class eShape { eSquare, eCircle, eShpere, eTetraeder }; > > double test_switch_native(eShape shape, double r) { > switch(shape) { > case

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82405 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug c/82413] [8 Regression] -O0 crash (ICE in decompose, at tree.h:5179)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82413 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug c++/82410] [7/8 Regression] ICE in replace_placeholders_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82410 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82413 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment