[Bug target/83292] __builtin_apply(), __builtin_return() trigger x87 stack exception on 32-bit x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Andrew Church from comment #3) > I use __builtin_return(__builtin_apply(...)) in library function wrappers > for failure injection in tests, so that I don't need to explicitly write out > all the

[Bug target/71657] Wrong code on trunk gcc (std::out_of_range), westmere

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71657 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ra, wrong-code CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/83299] result of pointer addition can be assumed to be less than or equal to PTRDIFF_MAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83299 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- As an implementation detail, the argument to POINTER_PLUS is always unsigned... (maintainers are in favor of changing that, but someone needs to do the work) Also, we now quickly simplify p-q to -i, which

[Bug c++/83300] New: Segmentation fault with template and __attribute__((vector_size (sizeof(int) * N)));

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83300 Bug ID: 83300 Summary: Segmentation fault with template and __attribute__((vector_size (sizeof(int) * N))); Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/83296] missing -Wstringop-overflow due to missing range info for MAX_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83296 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- Note that -fdump-tree-optimized-all includes the range information in the dump. Normally, we know how to derive a range for MAX_EXPR, but in this case the MAX_EXPR only appears in phiopt3, later than VRP2. On

[Bug tree-optimization/79119] absolute value of a pointer difference can be assumed to be less than or equal to PTRDIFF_MAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79119 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- With POINTER_DIFF_EXPR, things may be easier. One of the things I suggested when introducing it was that VRP could always use a range of [ -PTRDIFF_MAX, PTRDIFF_MAX ] for them. If you had written

[Bug target/83292] __builtin_apply(), __builtin_return() trigger x87 stack exception on 32-bit x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Church --- I use __builtin_return(__builtin_apply(...)) in library function wrappers for failure injection in tests, so that I don't need to explicitly write out all the arguments

[Bug libfortran/78549] Very slow formatted internal file output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549 --- Comment #30 from Jerry DeLisle --- Not quite fixed yet. I have found: ==17070== 88 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3 of 9 ==17070==at 0x4C31B25: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)

[Bug tree-optimization/83299] New: result of pointer addition can be assumed to be less than or equal to PTRDIFF_MAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83299 Bug ID: 83299 Summary: result of pointer addition can be assumed to be less than or equal to PTRDIFF_MAX Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/83282] missing comma in format changes output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83282 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7/8 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/83298] New: wrong code at -O1, -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.0 20171205 (experimental) [trunk revision 255434

[Bug c++/79094] Pack expansion in using-declaration rejects an attempt to inherit a pack of constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79094 --- Comment #2 from Scott Constable --- This is still an issue in 7.2.0.

[Bug target/83297] Internal Compiler Error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83297 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug c/83297] New: Internal Compiler Error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83297 Bug ID: 83297 Summary: Internal Compiler Error Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug libstdc++/83120] [8 Regression] ext/special_functions/hyperg failure on AIX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83120 --- Comment #4 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> --- In my regen of the testcases, I clobbered some dg-extra-options or something.

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/83296] New: missing -Wstringop-overflow due to missing range info for MAX_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83296 Bug ID: 83296 Summary: missing -Wstringop-overflow due to missing range info for MAX_EXPR Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/80641] [7/8 Regression] Warning with std::vector resize in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug c/83294] int32_t & related definitions wrong with -funsigned-bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- FWIW, current glibc already uses signed int for int32_t (via using it for __int32_t which is used to define int32_t), entirely as an accident following a header refactoring, but not for

[Bug c/83294] int32_t & related definitions wrong with -funsigned-bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294 --- Comment #2 from Rich Felker --- I agree it's not clear if there's a conformance distinction or just a QoI issue, but it seems really unfortunate for int32_t not to be usable in bitfields if -funsigned-bitfields might be passed to GCC, since

[Bug c/83294] int32_t & related definitions wrong with -funsigned-bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I'm not aware of a standard requirement not to use plain int for int32_t (even with unsigned bit-fields), though it may well be useful to make the signedness explicit. After all, int is a

[Bug libgomp/83295] New: libgomp complains about trying to map data that is already mapped

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83295 Bug ID: 83295 Summary: libgomp complains about trying to map data that is already mapped Product: gcc Version: 7.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/79228] 'i' suffix for __complex__ extension interferes with C++14 UDLs for std::complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79228 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 5 21:00:15 2017 New Revision: 255434 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255434=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/79228 * expr.c (interpret_float_suffix): Avoid memcmp.

[Bug c/83294] New: int32_t & related definitions wrong with -funsigned-bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83294 Bug ID: 83294 Summary: int32_t & related definitions wrong with -funsigned-bitfields Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/83293] [8 regression] ICE: in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/82646] bogus -Wstringop-overflow with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 on strncpy with range to a member array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82646 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Sorry. I shouldn't have closed this.

[Bug c++/82331] [7/8 Regression] ICE specializing template for function pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331 --- Comment #5 from Paolo Carlini --- Double checked that both the bugs I resolved as duplicates are also fixed. Thanks!

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- OK I'll try to reproduce it as soon as I can.

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- It was pointed out to me that the allocator in my example should not allocate more than its max_size, so the example isn't reasonable. So the invariant in Martin's patch is OK.

[Bug tree-optimization/83293] New: [8 regression] ICE: in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:278

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83293 Bug ID: 83293 Summary: [8 regression] ICE: in gsi_insert_seq_nodes_after, at gimple-iterator.c:278 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #5 from T B --- Both seem to have large file support enabled, it outputs both times enabled.

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- What does this output, for both gcc-5 and gcc-7? #include int main() { std::cout << "Large file support: " #ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_LFS "enabled" #else "disabled" #endif "\n"; }

[Bug tree-optimization/82103] spurious stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82103 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It should. It may not though because one the n != 0 test is removed, the resulting range of N is probably VR_VARYING rather than ~[0,0] at the call to memset. The former signifies we know nothing about

[Bug middle-end/81876] [7 Regression] bogus -Wstrict-overflow warning with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81876 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Richi. I do worry about cases where we exploit strict-overflow semantics. It'd be nice to be able to warn about them, but I certainly agree that stability is a problem. With instability, messaging to and

[Bug target/83292] __builtin_apply(), __builtin_return() trigger x87 stack exception on 32-bit x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I suspect __builtin_apply, __builtin_return and should most likely be deprecated and removed latter on. They are less useful and don't work for most things. libffi is more useful than them now.

[Bug target/83292] __builtin_apply(), __builtin_return() trigger x87 stack exception on 32-bit x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292 Andrew Church changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|__builtin_apply() triggers

[Bug c++/82331] [7/8 Regression] ICE specializing template for function pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82331 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Tue Dec 5 18:05:23 2017 New Revision: 255430 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255430=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/82331 - ICE with variadic partial specialization of auto *

[Bug c/78768] -Walloca-larger-than and -Wformat-length warnings disabled by -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768 --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- Yes, r244537 is the revision I meant, thank you. The test still isn't quite correct, though, because, as pr79062 and pr82770 point out, it fails to detect the missing sprintf warning in separate

[Bug c/78768] -Walloca-larger-than and -Wformat-length warnings disabled by -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Preud'homme --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #10) > The test was changed to link-only (to exercise LTO) in r244385. I think you meant r244537

[Bug c++/83287] [8 Regression] ice in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:14884

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #3 from T B --- I recompiled the GCC 7.2.0 with this configuration: --enable-threads=posix --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu --enable-checking=release --enable-languages=c,c++

[Bug target/83292] New: __builtin_apply() triggers x87 stack exception on 32-bit x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83292 Bug ID: 83292 Summary: __builtin_apply() triggers x87 stack exception on 32-bit x86 Product: gcc Version: 7.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/65930] Reduction with sign-change not handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On December 5, 2017 4:23:17 PM GMT+01:00, "sergey.shalnov at intel dot com" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930 > >sergey.shalnov at intel dot com

[Bug c++/83287] [8 Regression] ice in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:14884

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287 --- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell --- Author: nathan Date: Tue Dec 5 17:29:58 2017 New Revision: 255429 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255429=gcc=rev Log: [PR C++/83287] Mark lookup for keeping

[Bug sanitizer/82046] [7/8 Regression] Bogus -fsanitize=undefined error with -O2 -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- I don't have a huge problem with closing this as won't fix. I do hope to get around to pr79265 and eliminate some of the unnecessary instrumentation to improve the efficiency of the instrumented code. If

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > This libstdc++ patch helps avoid both the warning and the bogus memset. if > Jonathan isn't opposed to this kind of annotation I think there might be > other

[Bug testsuite/82770] [8 regression] gcc.dg/pr78768.c xpass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- So remove the xfail from the test and keep some (non-regression?) PR where you track the rest?

[Bug testsuite/82770] [8 regression] gcc.dg/pr78768.c xpass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/83239] False positive from -Wstringop-overflow on simple std::vector code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83239 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug tree-optimization/81165] [8 Regression] Regression in GCC-8.0.0's optimizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81165 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- In general we can't know if we're going to have a single argument PHI after threading. If the block has multiple preds that thread to the same final destination, then we create a single copy and vector

[Bug c++/80038] [6/7 Regression] Random segfault using local vectors in Cilk function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80038 --- Comment #37 from Jeffrey A. Law --- There are no plans to backport any additional Cilk+ changes/fixes to the release branches.

[Bug target/78117] gcc on tilegx builds faulty strstr() function (from glibc)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78117 Chris Metcalf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cmetcalf at mellanox dot com ---

[Bug c/78768] -Walloca-larger-than and -Wformat-length warnings disabled by -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78768 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- The test was changed to link-only (to exercise LTO) in r244385.

[Bug target/82248] probe_stack can generate unpredictable STR on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82248 --- Comment #6 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Author: ramana Date: Tue Dec 5 16:32:55 2017 New Revision: 255428 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255428=gcc=rev Log: [Patch ARM] Fix probe_stack constraint. The probe_stack pattern uses r0 as

[Bug tree-optimization/83026] missing strlen optimization for strcmp of unequal strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83026 --- Comment #4 from Qing Zhao --- Note, this optimization is only valid when the result of the strcmp is used to compare with zero.

[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7/8 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 --- Comment #5 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It really depends on the growth necessary to expose the thread. I haven't tried to evaluate that -- clearly if the code growth is unacceptable then threading is the wrong answer. In general we should

[Bug testsuite/83289] [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug testsuite/83289] [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 5 16:17:09 2017 New Revision: 255427 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255427=gcc=rev Log: PR testsuite/83289 * gcc.target/i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c:

[Bug testsuite/83281] [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot com ---

[Bug libgomp/83291] [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-dbl.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83291 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgomp/83291] New: [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-dbl.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83291 Bug ID: 83291 Summary: [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-dbl.c, libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c fails Product: gcc Version:

[Bug middle-end/81897] [6/7/8 Regression] spurious -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81897 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/65930] Reduction with sign-change not handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65930 sergey.shalnov at intel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sergey.shalnov at intel

[Bug rtl-optimization/83162] [6/7/8 Regression] x86-64 -Wclobbered issuing more false alarms (regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83162 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Both warnings are emitted starting with r235980. The first one appeared with r226901.

[Bug tree-optimization/81945] [8 Regression] ICE in operator[], at vec.h:749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81945 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|amker at

[Bug tree-optimization/83277] [8 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/83277] [8 Regression] [graphite] Wrong code w/ -O2 -floop-nest-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83277 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Dec 5 15:10:23 2017 New Revision: 255424 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255424=gcc=rev Log: 2017-12-05 Richard Biener PR

[Bug testsuite/83289] [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|wrong-code | Component|target

[Bug libstdc++/83279] std::experimental::filesystem::copy_file can't copy larger files than 2.0GiB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83279 --- Comment #2 from T B --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > (In reply to T B from comment #0) > > However, when I compiled it with GCC 5.4.0 (g++ -std=c++14 *.cpp *.h > > -lstdc++fs) everything works fine and I can copy files

[Bug c++/83290] Expressions in anonymous unions inside class templates can't reference the union's members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83290 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug target/82964] gfortran.dg/class_array_1.f03 regression since r254388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83290] New: Expressions in anonymous unions inside class templates can't reference the union's members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83290 Bug ID: 83290 Summary: Expressions in anonymous unions inside class templates can't reference the union's members Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/82964] gfortran.dg/class_array_1.f03 regression since r254388

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82964 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from

[Bug target/82974] [8 regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305 on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82974 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #13 from Andrey Guskov --- Nope. The issue persists. I don`t know whether anyone reported this to SPEC already, but even if so I share Richard`s pessimism.

[Bug testsuite/83281] [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/82006] [8 Regression] ERROR: torture-init: torture_without_loops is not empty as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82006 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Emrich --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > Any progress on this? No, I'm under heavy workload at the moment. I don't see how to debug this. I will bisect to find the commit

[Bug testsuite/83281] [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 5 13:34:41 2017 New Revision: 255418 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255418=gcc=rev Log: PR testsuite/83281 *

[Bug tree-optimization/83283] [7/8 Regression] Casting from boolean to unsigned char to enum returns incorrect results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Dec 5 13:33:52 2017 New Revision: 255417 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255417=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/83283 * g++.dg/torture/pr83283.C: New test.

[Bug ipa/82027] [7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O3 -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82027 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug middle-end/82004] [8 Regression] SPEC CPU2017 628.pop2_s miscompare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82004 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, any progress here? Has SPEC accepted some fix, or is this still broken?

[Bug testsuite/82006] [8 Regression] ERROR: torture-init: torture_without_loops is not empty as expected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82006 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug sanitizer/82046] [7/8 Regression] Bogus -fsanitize=undefined error with -O2 -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82046 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- At least for warnings that require optimizations in order to avoid false positives like these, I think you need to accept some false positives with sanitizers, which necessarily cause fewer optimizations

[Bug testsuite/82770] [8 regression] gcc.dg/pr78768.c xpass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82770 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/83252] [8 Regression] Wrong code with "-march=skylake-avx512 -O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83252 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/83289] [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Ah. It seems to be because the testcases test for /5, /4 etc., which is now printed as /4 resp. /3, because alternatives start counting at 0.

[Bug target/83289] [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289 --- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool --- Please show output and output from before it failed. And/or some analysis that shows why current is wrong. Etc. Or even better, make a patch to fix the testcase ;-)

[Bug bootstrap/83284] bootstrap comparison failure in libiberty/stack-limit.o

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83284 --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- Created attachment 42796 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42796=edit cmp -bl stage2-libiberty/stack-limit.o stage3-libiberty/stack-limit.o (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) >

[Bug testsuite/83281] [8 regression] libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/reduction-cplx-flt.c and reduction-cplx-dbl.c fail starting with r255335

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83281 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/83287] [8 Regression] ice in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:14884

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/83289] New: [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83289 Bug ID: 83289 Summary: [8 regression] i386/sse2-init-v2di-2.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-load-1.c, i386/avx256-unaligned-store-*.c fails Product: gcc Version: 8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/83283] [7/8 Regression] Casting from boolean to unsigned char to enum returns incorrect results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83283 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/83287] [8 Regression] ice in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:14884

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83287 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/83288] [8 Regression] polyhedron gas_dyn 2-fold compile-time regression caused by r255103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Goes from textdata bss dec hex filename 58882 20 8001512 8060414 7afdfe gas_dyn.o to textdata bss dec hex filename 90002 20 8001512 8091534 7b778e

[Bug tree-optimization/83288] [8 Regression] polyhedron gas_dyn 2-fold compile-time regression caused by r255103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- We're doing a lot more inlining blowing up the CU. note the bit_speedup thing below (- is good, + is bad). Not sure if the intent was to "break" things like this (SPEC 2k6 int also has some compile-time

[Bug tree-optimization/83288] [8 Regression] polyhedron gas_dyn 2-fold compile-time regression caused by r255103

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83288 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Corresponding diff -upbd for better readability: --- gcc/match.pd.jj 2017-11-28 09:40:08.0 +0100 +++ gcc/match.pd2017-12-05 11:36:58.855074420 +0100 @@ -1783,9 +1783,8 @@

[Bug sanitizer/81281] [6/7/8 Regression] UBSAN: false positive, dropped promotion to long type.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81281 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #42785|0 |1 is obsolete|

  1   2   >