[Bug c++/85282] CWG 727 (full specialization in non-namespace scope)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282 --- Comment #1 from songyuanyao --- The error message for the code (from gcc8.0.1): error: explicit specialization in non-namespace scope

[Bug c++/85282] New: CWG 727 (full specialization in non-namespace scope)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85282 Bug ID: 85282 Summary: CWG 727 (full specialization in non-namespace scope) Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/82976] [8 Regression] Error: non-trivial conversion at assignment since r254526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82976 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sat Apr 7 23:52:03 2018 New Revision: 259212 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259212=gcc=rev Log: 2018-04-07 Thomas Koenig Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/85269] warn for referenced standard symbols that aren't guaranteed to be declared in a header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85269 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Your example in comment #2 should not warn. Projects often have their own "base" header that includes a a bunch of standard headers and that by convention is included in each of the project's source files so

[Bug c++/85269] warn for referenced standard symbols that aren't guaranteed to be declared in a header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85269 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Also, we'd need to be careful so that we don't warn about referring to > std::ostream without , because exists specifically to make > that possible. Also,

[Bug c++/85269] warn for referenced standard symbols that aren't guaranteed to be declared in a header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85269 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Could you clarify the suggestion? Should your first example warn because std::locale is only declared not defined? What if we later modify so it does include the whole of , would that stop the warning?

[Bug target/85281] New: [8 Regression] Assembler messages: Error: operand size mismatch for `vpbroadcastb' with -mavx512bw -masm=intel

nux-gnu --with-ld=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-ld --with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch --prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-259207-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-pr85177-amd64 Thread model: posix gcc version 8.0.1 20180407 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug target/85280] [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85280 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu Target

[Bug target/85280] New: [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85280 Bug ID: 85280 Summary: [8 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/85279] New: [6/7/8 Regression] Broken diagnostic for decltype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85279 Bug ID: 85279 Summary: [6/7/8 Regression] Broken diagnostic for decltype Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug c++/85278] New: [concepts] Garbled diagnostic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85278 Bug ID: 85278 Summary: [concepts] Garbled diagnostic Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/85277] New: [8 Regression] Broken diagnostic for offsetof with static member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85277 Bug ID: 85277 Summary: [8 Regression] Broken diagnostic for offsetof with static member function Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug fortran/70870] Segmentation violation in gfc_assign_data_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70870 --- Comment #7 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Gerhard Steinmetz from comment #2) > A variant that aborts with this message directly : > > $ gfortran-6 z1.f90 > f951: internal compiler error: in gfc_assign_data_value, at >

[Bug gcov-profile/85276] [GCOV] A comparative statement with '=', '&&' , '||', and '==' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85276 --- Comment #1 from Yibiao Yang --- This bug is similar to bug 85163. As it is not a call statement apart from bug 85163, I report it as a new one.

[Bug gcov-profile/85276] New: [GCOV] A comparative statement with '=', '&&' , '||', and '==' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85276 Bug ID: 85276 Summary: [GCOV] A comparative statement with '=', '&&' , '||', and '==' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice in gcov Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c/84183] internal compiler error: in initialize, at alloc-pool.h:257

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84183 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Plank --- (In reply to Thomas Plank from comment #4) > I'm pretty sure I already had binutils updated to 2.30. > > I will give it a try with a downgrade to 2.29.1 and check if gcc 7.3.0 > builds then. I didn't do the

[Bug tree-optimization/80021] untranslateable diagnostic "type variant differs by " #flag "."

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80021 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/80021] untranslateable diagnostic "type variant differs by " #flag "."

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80021 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Sat Apr 7 10:57:53 2018 New Revision: 259211 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259211=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/80021 * tree.c (verify_type_variant): Make

[Bug middle-end/82976] [8 Regression] Error: non-trivial conversion at assignment since r254526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82976 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > match.pd looks like it has a type bug: > /* Simplify pointer equality compares using PTA. */ > (for neeq (ne eq) > (simplify > (neeq @0 @1) > (if

[Bug tree-optimization/85275] New: copyheader peels off almost the entire iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85275 Bug ID: 85275 Summary: copyheader peels off almost the entire iteration Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug target/80022] arc: diagnostic ending in two periods

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80022 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/85257] [6/7 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-ccp and reading zeroed vector member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85257 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|[6/7/8

[Bug gcov-profile/85274] New: [GCOV] A return statement in if(0) block is wrongly marked as executed when they are nested in for(;1;) statement and prefixed with an struct declaration and followed by

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85274 Bug ID: 85274 Summary: [GCOV] A return statement in if(0) block is wrongly marked as executed when they are nested in for(;1;) statement and prefixed with an struct declaration and

[Bug tree-optimization/85257] [6/7/8 Regression] wrong code with -O -fno-tree-ccp and reading zeroed vector member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85257 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Sat Apr 7 07:20:42 2018 New Revision: 259206 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=259206=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/85257 * fold-const.c (native_encode_vector):

[Bug gcov-profile/85273] New: [GCOV] return statement in else block of if(1) statement when there is an array declaration statement and a goto statement in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85273 Bug ID: 85273 Summary: [GCOV] return statement in else block of if(1) statement when there is an array declaration statement and a goto statement in gcov Product: gcc