[Bug tree-optimization/87245] [missed optimization] switching on indices of struct members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87245 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/14799] [tree-ssa] convert a sequence of "if"s to a "switch" statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14799 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eyalroz at technion dot ac.il ---

[Bug tree-optimization/87925] [missed-optimization] Distinct-value if-then-else chains treated differently than switch statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87925 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > /* (m1 CMP m2) * d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0 */ > (for cmp (gt lt ge le) > (simplify > (mult (convert (cmp @0 @1)) @2) > (cond (cmp @0 @1) @2 { build_zero_cst

[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- /* (m1 CMP m2) * d -> (m1 CMP m2) ? d : 0 */ (for cmp (gt lt ge le) (simplify (mult (convert (cmp @0 @1)) @2) (cond (cmp @0 @1) @2 { build_zero_cst (type); }))) Should have caught that ... NOTE I think

[Bug c++/87961] crash at goto label inside sizeof of a statement expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87961 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is a dup of bug 17913 which was fixed in the C front-end in 2005 but it was never fixed in the C++ front-end (the front-ends share some code but not all).

[Bug middle-end/87941] by_pieces infra does not use movmisalign optab

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87941 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm*-*-*

[Bug other/86904] Column numbers ignore tab characters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86904 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #2) > (In reply to richard.earnshaw from comment #1) > > On 09/08/18 21:08, dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > [...snip...] > > > Maybe: > > >

[Bug middle-end/87836] ICE in cc1 for gcc-6.5.0 with SPARC hardware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836 --- Comment #9 from Gary Mills --- Okay, I'm compiling it with -O0 right now. It might take a couple of days.

[Bug c/87964] c-attribs.c:3965: possible cut'n'paste error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87964 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libfortran/87966] [9 regression] The SPEC2006 tests 416.gamess and 481.wrf fail starting with r265946

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87966 --- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle --- I had a leftover printf statement for debugging in the initial commit last night which I fixed this morning. Let me know if the problem persists. The line was: printf("allow_std=%d\n",

[Bug testsuite/87965] [9 regression] Test cases c-c++-common/pr60226.c and gcc.dg/pr39323-1.c fail starting with r265977

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87965 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Nov 9 23:15:59 2018 New Revision: 265998 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265998=gcc=rev Log: gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog: PR testsuite/87965 *

[Bug middle-end/87836] ICE in cc1 for gcc-6.5.0 with SPARC hardware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > That's the immediate cause of the ICE. I haven't identified the root cause > yet. I'm wondering, though, why the compiler built and ran on x86 hardware, > but failed on SPARC hardware. One difference is

[Bug testsuite/87965] [9 regression] Test cases c-c++-common/pr60226.c and gcc.dg/pr39323-1.c fail starting with r265977

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87965 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/87965] [9 regression] Test cases c-c++-common/pr60226.c and gcc.dg/pr39323-1.c fail starting with r265977

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87965 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/87967] New: ice in slpeel_duplicate_current_defs_from_edges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87967 Bug ID: 87967 Summary: ice in slpeel_duplicate_current_defs_from_edges Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libfortran/87966] New: [9 regression] The SPEC2006 tests 416.gamess and 481.wrf fail starting with r265946

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87966 Bug ID: 87966 Summary: [9 regression] The SPEC2006 tests 416.gamess and 481.wrf fail starting with r265946 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/87965] New: [9 regression] Test cases c-c++-common/pr60226.c and gcc.dg/pr39323-1.c fail starting with r265977

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87965 Bug ID: 87965 Summary: [9 regression] Test cases c-c++-common/pr60226.c and gcc.dg/pr39323-1.c fail starting with r265977 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/87947] Symbol Does Not Appear in Object File

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87947 --- Comment #2 from comm+gnu at squotd dot net --- Thanks. I had no idea that had changed.

[Bug c++/87850] Add fix-it hint for "invalid conversion from 'X' to 'X*'"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87850 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/87836] ICE in cc1 for gcc-6.5.0 with SPARC hardware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836 --- Comment #7 from Gary Mills --- I'm still waiting for information on how to use gdb to check the alignment of the structures involved in this ICE. I had to RTFM and experiment. Here's the result: $ /usr/bin/sparcv7/gdb

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/87963] libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/memory_resource.cc:515:31: error: static assertion failed for mingw-w64 target since r265853

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/85103] [8/9 Regression] Performance regressions on SPEC with r257582

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85103 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug c/87964] New: c-attribs.c:3965: possible cut'n'paste error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87964 Bug ID: 87964 Summary: c-attribs.c:3965: possible cut'n'paste error ? Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug driver/41179] Documentation for "-fno-toplevel-reorder" is confusing (and wrong)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41179 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/65703] -fdefer-pop documentation is confusing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65703 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/87221] cannot build with -pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87221 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/87221] cannot build with -pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87221 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Nov 9 20:55:39 2018 New Revision: 265994 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265994=gcc=rev Log: PR target/87221 * config/netbsd-elf.h (NETBSD_STARTFILE_SPEC): Use

[Bug driver/41179] Documentation for "-fno-toplevel-reorder" is confusing (and wrong)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41179 --- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: sandra Date: Fri Nov 9 20:45:06 2018 New Revision: 265993 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265993=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Sandra Loosemore PR driver/41179 PR

[Bug middle-end/65703] -fdefer-pop documentation is confusing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65703 --- Comment #3 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: sandra Date: Fri Nov 9 20:45:06 2018 New Revision: 265993 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265993=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Sandra Loosemore PR driver/41179 PR

[Bug tree-optimization/87940] [9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/warn-strlen-no-nul.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87940 Bernd Edlinger changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/87940] [9 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/warn-strlen-no-nul.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87940 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- Author: edlinger Date: Fri Nov 9 20:38:07 2018 New Revision: 265992 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265992=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Bernd Edlinger PR tree-optimization/87940 *

[Bug libstdc++/87963] New: libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/memory_resource.cc:515:31: error: static assertion failed for mingw-w64 target since r265853

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87963 Bug ID: 87963 Summary: libstdc++-v3/src/c++17/memory_resource.cc:515:31: error: static assertion failed for mingw-w64 target since r265853 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug target/87762] [9 Regression] extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2206 on s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87762 --- Comment #4 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: iii Date: Fri Nov 9 20:33:19 2018 New Revision: 265991 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265991=gcc=rev Log: S/390: Allow relative addressing of literal pool entries r265490 allowed the

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- Trying that out now.

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #7) > This sounds like the general problem of the first RA pass creating > excessively long live ranges. Yeah. > Does GCC know how to re-materialize a

[Bug libstdc++/87787] [9 Regression][UBSAN] runtime error: null pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87787 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Nov 9 20:14:07 2018 New Revision: 265984 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265984=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/87787 fix UBsan error in std::vector PR libstdc++/87787

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to meissner from comment #6) - Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- > > Seems like a potential opportunity for shrink-wrap separate on the CRs. I'm > > not sure whether that's implemented yet. >

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Vitali from comment #5) > Jonathan, I think the defect report here does actually apply to this > example. I didn't say otherwise. > I agree the argument could be made that if there's gaps in

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Bill Schmidt from comment #4) > Seems like a potential opportunity for shrink-wrap separate on the CRs. I'm > not sure whether that's implemented yet. It isn't; there are some technical

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #5 from Vitali --- Jonathan, I think the defect report here does actually apply to this example. I agree the argument could be made that if there's gaps in the enum values that it's arguable that the current GCC behaviour is

[Bug fortran/87960] [9 Regression] Miscompilation of 527.cam4_r benchmark from SPEC2017 w/ -O2 since r265946

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87960 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #4 from Vitali --- Is there a way to annotate a specific enum as strict?

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Vitali from comment #0) > If a function has a single switch statement that handles all enum values & > returns a value GCC will warn about the function not returning a value > whereas clang

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc |powerpc-*-*

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #6 from meissner at linux dot ibm.com --- On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:47:31PM +, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 > > --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- > Seems like a

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #5 from meissner at linux dot ibm.com --- On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:28:28AM +, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 > > --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- > What do you think

[Bug libstdc++/87520] [8/9 Regression] ODR violations in std::make_shared when mixing -fno-rtti and -frtti

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87520 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > @@ -513,7 +512,6 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION >alignas(type_info) static constexpr _Sp_make_shared_tag __tag; This needs to be fixed to have

[Bug c/81824] Warn for missing attributes with function aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/85930] [8/9 Regression] Misaligned reference created in shared_ptr_base.h with -fno-rtti

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85930 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED URL|

[Bug tree-optimization/18501] [7/8/9 Regression] Missing 'used uninitialized' warning (CCP)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/87962] ice in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87962 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/87962] New: ice in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87962 Bug ID: 87962 Summary: ice in vect_get_vec_def_for_operand_1, at tree-vect-stmts.c:1485 Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/81824] Warn for missing attributes with function aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81824 --- Comment #10 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Nov 9 17:32:52 2018 New Revision: 265980 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265980=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/81824 - Warn for missing attributes with function aliases

[Bug fortran/78351] comma not terminating READ of formatted input field - ok in 4.1.7, not 4.4.7- maybe related to 25419?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351 --- Comment #26 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Nov 9 17:29:33 2018 New Revision: 265979 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265979=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Jerry DeLisle PR libfortran/78351 *

[Bug c/87795] Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c/87795] Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87795 --- Comment #8 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Nov 9 17:17:47 2018 New Revision: 265977 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265977=gcc=rev Log: PR c/87795 - Excessive alignment permitted for functions and labels

[Bug fortran/78351] comma not terminating READ of formatted input field - ok in 4.1.7, not 4.4.7- maybe related to 25419?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78351 --- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Fri Nov 9 17:07:39 2018 New Revision: 265976 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265976=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Jerry DeLisle Backport from trunk PR

[Bug c/87950] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch cases are completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug libstdc++/87787] [9 Regression][UBSAN] runtime error: null pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87787 --- Comment #4 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #1) > That would be my recent commit. Namely, the commit r265485 of 2018-10-25: "Relocation (= move+destroy)" PR libstdc++/87106

[Bug libstdc++/87787] [9 Regression][UBSAN] runtime error: null pointer passed as argument 2, which is declared to never be null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87787 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/87949] PowerPC saves CR registers across calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87949 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- Seems like a potential opportunity for shrink-wrap separate on the CRs. I'm not sure whether that's implemented yet.

[Bug sanitizer/87892] [9 Regression]: libsanitizer fails to build on CentOS 5.11 (glibc 2.5)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87892 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/87961] New: crash at goto label inside sizeof

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87961 Bug ID: 87961 Summary: crash at goto label inside sizeof Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/81585] fastcall/stdcall attribute conflict not detected on distinct declarations of the same function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81585 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/80936] bcmp, bcopy, and bzero not declared nonnull

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80936 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ghazi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/80512] missing -Wformat-overfow on a numbered directive with width specified by "*m$"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80512 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/79605] attribute [[noreturn]] accepted in explicit instantiation directives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79605 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug driver/31351] gcc -v --help has poor documentation for some shared Ada/C options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31351 --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1) > This is a bug yes, but it won't get fixed unless someone that cares about it > steps up to fix it. I'd do this but I don't know the Ada FE well enough

[Bug middle-end/35903] false Warray-bounds warning when passing quoted string to function strcmp(arg,"no");

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35903 --- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > This bug has no changed for months, I think it is still active. > > Newer higher priority bugs often make us forget about

[Bug c/87942] every int seems to be unaligned in packed structure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87942 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Johannes Vetter from comment #3) > My problem now: in how many other cases is the same behavior? I cannot check > every global variable/struct by hand. I recommend to open a new bugreport

[Bug ipa/87957] [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051 since r265519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/87955] [9 Regression] ICE in cl_target_option_print_diff at gcc/options-save.c:3803 since r265920

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87955 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/87954] VRP can transform a * b where a,b are [0,1] to a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87954 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > Marc, are you planning to implement that in the future? Not in the near future, no. It is all yours if you want it ;-)

[Bug target/87867] [7/8 regression] ICE on virtual destructor (-mlong-calls -ffunction-sections) on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87867 --- Comment #2 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- Author: ramana Date: Fri Nov 9 12:50:51 2018 New Revision: 265965 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265965=gcc=rev Log: [PATCH, arm] Backport -- Fix ICE during thunk generation with -mlong-calls

[Bug tree-optimization/87954] VRP can transform a * b where a,b are [0,1] to a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87954 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Marc, are you planning to implement that in the future?

[Bug fortran/87960] [9 Regression] Miscompilation of 527.cam4_r benchmark from SPEC2017 w/ -O2 since r265946

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87960 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.2.0 Blocks|

[Bug fortran/87960] New: [9 Regression] Miscompilation of 527.cam4_r benchmark from SPEC2017 w/ -O2 since r265946

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87960 Bug ID: 87960 Summary: [9 Regression] Miscompilation of 527.cam4_r benchmark from SPEC2017 w/ -O2 since r265946 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ipa/87959] ICE in tree check: expected enumeral_type, have record_type in free_enum_values, at ipa-devirt.c:2265

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87959 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/87958] scan-tree-dump-times vs. (foo|bar)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87958 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, ok, thanks. Perhaps we should just mention it in our scan-tree-dump-times documentation and close then.

[Bug ipa/87959] New: ICE in tree check: expected enumeral_type, have record_type in free_enum_values, at ipa-devirt.c:2265

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87959 Bug ID: 87959 Summary: ICE in tree check: expected enumeral_type, have record_type in free_enum_values, at ipa-devirt.c:2265 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status:

[Bug testsuite/87958] scan-tree-dump-times vs. (foo|bar)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87958 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/87953] asan: stack-buffer-overflow in vectorizable_reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87953 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Nov 9 12:29:51 2018 New Revision: 265964 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265964=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/87953 *

[Bug c/87953] asan: stack-buffer-overflow in vectorizable_reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87953 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/86997] error: call of overloaded ‘NoDestructor()’ is ambiguous

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86997 Jan Engelhardt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jengelh at inai dot de --- Comment #4

[Bug target/87867] [7/8 regression] ICE on virtual destructor (-mlong-calls -ffunction-sections) on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87867 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/87957] [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051 since r265519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug testsuite/87958] New: scan-tree-dump-times vs. (foo|bar)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87958 Bug ID: 87958 Summary: scan-tree-dump-times vs. (foo|bar) Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite

[Bug ipa/87957] [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051 since r265519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2018-11-9 Known to work|

[Bug ipa/87957] New: [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051 since r265519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957 Bug ID: 87957 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051

[Bug tree-optimization/87954] VRP can transform a * b where a,b are [0,1] to a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87954 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #1) > Indeed, if you compile imul() with -fdump-tree-all-details-alias -O2 and > look at the vrp1 dump, one can see: > > # RANGE [0, 1] NONZERO 1 > is_rec_12 =

[Bug c/87953] asan: stack-buffer-overflow in vectorizable_reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87953 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/87942] every int seems to be unaligned in packed structure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87942 --- Comment #3 from Johannes Vetter --- Ok, thanks a lot. I haven't expected that an initializer could change the alignment of a variable. "-fno-common" does not work in my case (perhaps because the variable already has a attribute "section").

[Bug fortran/87943] [6 regression] severe regression on iso_varying_string (?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87943 --- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter --- Yep, I know that 6 is no longer supported. Nevertheless I wanted to at least report that bug. It is only in 6.5 , 7/8/9 are ok.

[Bug tree-optimization/87621] outer loop auto-vectorization fails for exponentiation code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87621 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Nov 9 10:53:31 2018 New Revision: 265959 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=265959=gcc=rev Log: 2018-11-09 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/87621 *

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 87621, which changed state. Bug 87621 Summary: outer loop auto-vectorization fails for exponentiation code https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87621 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/87621] outer loop auto-vectorization fails for exponentiation code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87621 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/87952] Missed optimization for std::get_if on std::variant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87952 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- I belive I've seen dups for this. We merely isolate those paths but do not remove them (removing them might end up as a security issue).

[Bug c/87950] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch cases are completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87950 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

  1   2   >