[Bug other/44803] LIBRARY_PATH should work on cross-compilers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44803 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/33915] iv folding fails with pointer iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33915 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85764] [8/9 Regression] bogus ‘this’ was not captured for this lambda function error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85764 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Sat Jun 2 03:14:44 2018 New Revision: 261101 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261101=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/85764 - bogus 'this' not captured error. * lambda.c

[Bug c/86026] Document and/or change allowed operations on integer representation of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026 Rich Felker changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugdal at aerifal dot cx --- Comment #4

[Bug libfortran/85975] Incorrect size for spread array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.2

[Bug fortran/85816] [8/9 Regression] nested spread fails with "Integer overflow in xmallocarray"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85816 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug libfortran/85975] Incorrect size for spread array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/85816] [8/9 Regression] nested spread fails with "Integer overflow in xmallocarray"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85816 Bug 85816 depends on bug 85975, which changed state. Bug 85975 Summary: Incorrect size for spread array https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/85816] [8/9 Regression] nested spread fails with "Integer overflow in xmallocarray"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85816 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat Jun 2 01:07:46 2018 New Revision: 261099 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261099=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/85816 PR

[Bug libfortran/85975] Incorrect size for spread array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat Jun 2 01:07:46 2018 New Revision: 261099 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261099=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/85816 PR

[Bug c++/85764] [8/9 Regression] bogus ‘this’ was not captured for this lambda function error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85764 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/85995] GCC defines __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ even when used with options that break C conformance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > Programmers normally use conditionals on '__STDC__' to ask whether > it is safe to use certain features of ISO C, such

[Bug c++/67711] Memory corruption when reassigning value to initializer_list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67711 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|wrong-code |diagnostic Status|NEW

[Bug c++/85873] [8/9 regression] GCC omits array constant in .rodata causing a segmentation fault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873 Bug 85873 depends on bug 67445, which changed state. Bug 67445 Summary: New warning: returning std::initializer_list bound to temporary https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67445 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/67445] New warning: returning std::initializer_list bound to temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67445 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/85873] [8/9 regression] GCC omits array constant in .rodata causing a segmentation fault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/85995] GCC defines __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ even when used with options that break C conformance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995 --- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #3) > See trouble.texi, "Non-bugs" / "Certain Changes We Don't Want to Make", > "Undefining @code{__STDC__} when @option{-ansi} is not used." which

[Bug c++/85873] [8/9 regression] GCC omits array constant in .rodata causing a segmentation fault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jun 1 22:48:58 2018 New Revision: 261091 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261091=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/85873 - constant initializer_list array not in .rodata. *

[Bug target/86011] Inefficient code generated for ldivmod with constant value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86011 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Oppenlander --- Sure, # cat test.c struct foo { long a, b; }; struct foo test(long long x) { return (struct foo){x / 77, x % 77}; } # gcc --version gcc (GCC) 8.1.0 Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation,

[Bug tree-optimization/86029] gcc -O3 make very slow product

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86029 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/86029] gcc -O3 make very slow product

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86029 Tavian Barnes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tavianator at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/58281] Problem with explicitly instantiated constexpr template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58281 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Fri Jun 1 20:49:33 2018 New Revision: 261085 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261085=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/58281 - explicit instantiation of constexpr * pt.c

[Bug c++/58281] Problem with explicitly instantiated constexpr template functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58281 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug driver/86030] New: specs file processing does not create response files for input directories

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86030 Bug ID: 86030 Summary: specs file processing does not create response files for input directories Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/85816] [8/9 Regression] nested spread fails with "Integer overflow in xmallocarray"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85816 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 1 20:20:35 2018 New Revision: 261081 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261081=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/85816 PR

[Bug libfortran/85975] Incorrect size for spread array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 1 20:20:35 2018 New Revision: 261081 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261081=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/85816 PR

[Bug c/85997] Bogus -Wvla warning from function array argument with size expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85997 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- The requirements on array declarators apply before parameter arrays decay to pointers; see DR#047 (which concerns the case of an incomplete element type - not itself a constraint violation

[Bug fortran/85840] Memory leak in write.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/85840] Memory leak in write.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85840 --- Comment #16 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Jun 1 18:34:09 2018 New Revision: 261077 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261077=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Jerry DeLisle Backport from trunk. PR

[Bug fortran/63570] [F2018] Implement 13.7.137 RANDOM INIT (REPEATABLE, IMAGE DISTINCT)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63570 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/63570] [F2018] Implement 13.7.137 RANDOM INIT (REPEATABLE, IMAGE DISTINCT)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63570 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 1 17:05:02 2018 New Revision: 261075 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261075=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/63570 * check.c

[Bug c/85997] Bogus -Wvla warning from function array argument with size expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85997 --- Comment #2 from Kari Nurmela --- There is only one array in the program, "array", and that is not a variable length array. The syntax in print_array doesn't take any position on the kind of the array, only that there are at least "count"

[Bug libstdc++/86015] Better handling of iterator distances

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86015 --- Comment #4 from Josh Marshall --- These changes may make the stdlib implementation more robust, but there may be an argument to stick to the more strict standard or tweak the standard. Could you link to the standard doc you're pulling from?

[Bug c/86029] New: gcc -O3 make very slow product

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86029 Bug ID: 86029 Summary: gcc -O3 make very slow product Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/85997] Bogus -Wvla warning from function array argument with size expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85997 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Well, that's a VLA before the decay to pointer type, and thus violates the C90 constraint referenced in the diagnostic. So a diagnostic is obviously required with -std=c90 -pedantic or

[Bug rtl-optimization/86028] New: Dead stores created by va_start/va_arg are not fully cleaned up

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86028 Bug ID: 86028 Summary: Dead stores created by va_start/va_arg are not fully cleaned up Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug c/85995] GCC defines __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ even when used with options that break C conformance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- See trouble.texi, "Non-bugs" / "Certain Changes We Don't Want to Make", "Undefining @code{__STDC__} when @option{-ansi} is not used." (and the description of handling of base standards in

[Bug target/86005] [RISCV] Invalid intermixing of __atomic_* libcalls and inline atomic instruction sequences

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86005 --- Comment #7 from James Y Knight --- (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #6) > On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 15:07 +, foom at fuhm dot net wrote: > > (But also, why doesn't it implement __atomic_add_fetch inline?) > > If you don't have atomic

[Bug c/86026] Document and/or change allowed operations on integer representation of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Monakov --- Tree optimizations already manage to avoid "optimizing" f_intadd, but unfortunately on RTL types and casts are not visible in IR and various passes make no distinction between (char*)((uintptr_t)t + o)

[Bug c++/86027] New: string literals get corrupted with -O3 and gas on solaris i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86027 Bug ID: 86027 Summary: string literals get corrupted with -O3 and gas on solaris i386 Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/78870] Support std::filesystem on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78870 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/85964] [8/9 Regression] compile time hog w/ -O3 -ftracer -fno-guess-branch-probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #13

[Bug c/86026] Document and/or change allowed operations on integer representation of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026 --- Comment #2 from Pascal Cuoq --- Created attachment 44223 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44223=edit Complete source code for functions in the description

[Bug c++/86025] ICE with -Wduplicated-branches and OpenMP critical

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86025 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/85958] Make const qualifier error clear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958 --- Comment #6 from Jonny Grant --- Clang shows: $ clang -o main main.cpp -Wall -Werror -Wconversion main.cpp:15:5: error: no matching function for call to 'strstripspace' strstripspace(unused, two); ^ main.cpp:5:6: note:

[Bug c++/85958] Make const qualifier error clear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958 --- Comment #5 from Jonny Grant --- (In reply to Tavian Barnes from comment #4) > IMHO "discards qualifiers" and even "discards const qualifier" are still > confusing. Making it clearly counterfactual, as in "...would discard > (const)

[Bug c/86026] Document and/or change allowed operations on integer representation of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/85712] [8/9 Regression] ICE in all_phi_incrs_profitable_1 at gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3479

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85712] [8/9 Regression] ICE in all_phi_incrs_profitable_1 at gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3479

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712 --- Comment #10 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Fri Jun 1 13:00:57 2018 New Revision: 261067 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261067=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/85712 Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/85712] [8/9 Regression] ICE in all_phi_incrs_profitable_1 at gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3479

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712 --- Comment #9 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Fri Jun 1 12:57:16 2018 New Revision: 261066 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261066=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/85712 Backport

[Bug tree-optimization/85712] [8/9 Regression] ICE in all_phi_incrs_profitable_1 at gcc/gimple-ssa-strength-reduction.c:3479

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85712 --- Comment #8 from Bill Schmidt --- Author: wschmidt Date: Fri Jun 1 12:55:06 2018 New Revision: 261065 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261065=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Bill Schmidt PR tree-optimization/85712 Backport

[Bug ipa/85960] -fipa-pta and ifunc are incompatible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960 --- Comment #9 from Gianni Tedesco --- Sure, I can test it on real world cases over the weekend I think. Nice work guys. Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/85989] [6/7/8 Regression] Incorrect result for example involving unary minus in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7/8/9 Regression]|[6/7/8 Regression]

[Bug middle-end/85989] [6/7/8/9 Regression] Incorrect result for example involving unary minus in a loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989 --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Fri Jun 1 12:49:44 2018 New Revision: 261064 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261064=gcc=rev Log: Fix phi backedge detection in backprop (PR85989) This PR is a

[Bug c/86026] New: Document and/or change allowed operations on integer representation of pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86026 Bug ID: 86026 Summary: Document and/or change allowed operations on integer representation of pointers Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/86016] New tests for r260978 report excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86016 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/86025] New: ICE with -Wduplicated-branches and OpenMP critical

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86025 Bug ID: 86025 Summary: ICE with -Wduplicated-branches and OpenMP critical Product: gcc Version: 8.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/86006] compile time error generic type bound procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86006 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- BTW do you expect the ambiguity to be resolved in the following test? Module Mod_LL_DT Implicit None Private Type, Public :: LLCont_DT contains Generic :: GetElement =>

[Bug tree-optimization/86024] Missed memcpy loop distribution with elementwise copy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86024 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/86024] New: Missed memcpy loop distribution with elementwise copy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86024 Bug ID: 86024 Summary: Missed memcpy loop distribution with elementwise copy Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/86023] New: Fake triviality test for internal purposes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86023 Bug ID: 86023 Summary: Fake triviality test for internal purposes Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/86017] multiple consecutive calls to bzero/memset not merged

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86017 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|

[Bug sanitizer/86022] New: TCB size calculated in ThreadDescriptorSize() is wrong for glibc-2.14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86022 Bug ID: 86022 Summary: TCB size calculated in ThreadDescriptorSize() is wrong for glibc-2.14 Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/86017] multiple consecutive calls to bzero/memset not merged

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86017 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jun 1 10:49:54 2018 New Revision: 261061 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261061=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Richard Biener PR middle-end/86017 *

[Bug fortran/86006] compile time error generic type bound procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86006 --- Comment #4 from Karl May --- Hi. Thanks. here is the link: https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/intel-fortran-compiler-for-linux-and-mac-os-x/topic/779807

[Bug fortran/86006] compile time error generic type bound procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86006 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > From my understanding the compiler translates the generic call > at compile time into calls for the functions bound to the generic call. > If this is the case, and given the fact that the compiler

[Bug fortran/86006] compile time error generic type bound procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86006 --- Comment #2 from Karl May --- Hi. Thank for the response It compiles with ifort -c -stand f08 tmp.f90 ifort -c -stand f15 tmp.f90 ifort -c -stand f03 tmp.f90 ifort version was 17.07 >From my understanding the compiler translates the

[Bug fortran/86021] ICE when initializing a character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86021 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

Join SciencePG as editorial board members/reviewers and submit your article

Dear Professor/Scholar, We publish peer-reviewed scientific journals devoted to the development of innovative science and technology. Now we sincerely invite scholars and researchers to submit papers to the journals or to join in the editorial board/reviewer team.

[Bug libstdc++/86013] std::vector::shrink_to_fit() could sometimes use realloc()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jan Kratochvil from comment #0) > Maybe it could even always call realloc() for size reduction of any type of > objects and just assert the returned pointer did not change. I can't find anywhere

[Bug fortran/86021] ICE when initializing a character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86021 --- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Both look more like PR84141/PR84155. Paul, the gfc_get_dtype changes should > probably be backported. I'll take a look see over the weekend. Cheers Paul

[Bug target/60410] [4.9/5/6 Regression] -fshort-double ICEs x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60410 --- Comment #20 from M.Schewe --- Removing -fshort-double completely was not a good idea. It is required for ARM microcontrollers, e.g. ARM Cortex M4F with a FPU which can handly only single precision arithmetic operations. All double precision

[Bug target/86019] [8/9 Regression] Unref implementation using atomic_thread_fence generates worse code on x86-64 in gcc 8.1 than 7.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86019 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/85964] [8/9 Regression] compile time hog w/ -O3 -ftracer -fno-guess-branch-probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- Jeff can you look at the backwards threading scaling issue? There's also PR69580 for that which may be the same underlying issue.

[Bug fortran/86021] ICE when initializing a character array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86021 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/86013] std::vector::shrink_to_fit() could sometimes use realloc()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- shrink_to_fit is a non-binding request, the implementation is allowed to completely ignore it. But the expected semantics (at least, expected by those who designed the feature) is that it reallocates new

[Bug ipa/85960] -fipa-pta and ifunc are incompatible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Known to fail|

[Bug ipa/85960] -fipa-pta and ifunc are incompatible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Jun 1 08:20:08 2018 New Revision: 261056 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=261056=gcc=rev Log: 2018-06-01 Richard Biener PR ipa/85960 *

[Bug tree-optimization/86017] multiple consecutive calls to bzero/memset not merged

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86017 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/86013] std::vector::shrink_to_fit() could sometimes use realloc()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86013 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #3

[Bug target/86011] Inefficient code generated for ldivmod with constant value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86011 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/86010] [7/8/9 Regression] redundant memset with smaller size not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86010 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/86007] precompiled header on bdver2 with -march=native triggers a "created and used with differing settings of '-mlwp'" warning, intermittently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86007 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener

[Bug target/86003] [8/9 Regression] GCC fails to build when configured --with-cpu=xscale

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86003 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm Priority|P3

[Bug sanitizer/85774] Incorrect stack-use-after-scope caused by missing cleanup of shadow bytes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85774 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > > If the variable is unused, why is any stack assigned to it? > > I guess it's due to -O0 or am I wrong? Jakub?

[Bug inline-asm/49611] Inline asm should support input/output of flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---