[Bug middle-end/4210] should not warning with dead code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brooks at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #24

[Bug c++/62074] "right shift count >= width of type" warning on dead branch in template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62074 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/62074] New: "right shift count >= width of type" warning on dead branch in template code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62074 Bug ID: 62074 Summary: "right shift count >= width of type" warning on dead branch in template code Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug c/62073] New: Segmentation fault with tree vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62073 Bug ID: 62073 Summary: Segmentation fault with tree vectorize Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/62072] New: [4.9/4.10 regression] No SFINAE performed for function type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62072 Bug ID: 62072 Summary: [4.9/4.10 regression] No SFINAE performed for function type Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug target/61641] [4.9/4.10 Regression] undefined label in jump_table_data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Component|rtl-optimization|target --- Comment #7 from John Davi

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 --- Comment #11 from kugan at gcc dot gnu.org --- I agree. I will post a patch to add this test-case and let the maintainers decide if this is necessary.

[Bug c/62070] [4.10 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62070 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Summ

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab --- Please reread comment#1.

[Bug c/62070] [GCC-4.10.0] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62070 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/62071] New: [4.10 Regression] ICE: in before_dom_children, at tree-ssa-pre.c:4411

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62071 Bug ID: 62071 Summary: [4.10 Regression] ICE: in before_dom_children, at tree-ssa-pre.c:4411 Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 --- Comment #6 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #2) > There is no such requirement for va_start/va_end. I am not sure what you mean here. I checked K & R 2 and va_start and va_end seem to be a matched pair to me.

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 --- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #4) > varargs isn't stdargs. Doh. Thanks.

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab --- varargs isn't stdargs.

[Bug c/62070] New: [GCC-4.10.0] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62070 Bug ID: 62070 Summary: [GCC-4.10.0] ICE: verify_ssa failed Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/62069] New: ICE: in int_cst_value, at tree.c:10625

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62069 Bug ID: 62069 Summary: ICE: in int_cst_value, at tree.c:10625 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 --- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey --- It was documented that way on some systems. Eg: http://www.cs.rit.edu/~hpb/Man/_Man_SunOS_4.1.3_html/html3/varargs.3.html Perhaps that isn't operative language any more; I guess I'm mildly curious to know.

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- There is no such requirement for va_start/va_end. You are probably thinking of pthread_cleanup_push/pop.

[Bug rtl-optimization/61641] [4.9/4.10 Regression] undefined label in jump_table_data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61641 --- Comment #6 from John David Anglin --- The patch does what it's supposed to but it's not right: .LVL58: comib,<> 0,%r28,.L70 nop .L74: .L80: .begin_brtab .word .L73-.L80 .word .L81-.L80 .word .L

[Bug libgcj/62068] libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 Tom Tromey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug libgcj/62068] New: libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62068 Bug ID: 62068 Summary: libjava/prims.cc:807: possible missing call to va_end ? Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priorit

[Bug lto/62067] New: lto-lang.c:549: too many calls to va_end on some code paths ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62067 Bug ID: 62067 Summary: lto-lang.c:549: too many calls to va_end on some code paths ? Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor P

[Bug target/62066] New: config/arm/arm.c:25298: possible missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62066 Bug ID: 62066 Summary: config/arm/arm.c:25298: possible missing call to va_end ? Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Prior

[Bug ada/62065] New: ada/sysdep.c:868: possible coding error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62065 Bug ID: 62065 Summary: ada/sysdep.c:868: possible coding error ? Product: gcc Version: 4.9.2 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada

[Bug c++/62064] Private inheritance and conversion function id in class member access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62064 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCON

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fr

[Bug c/59850] Support sparse-style pointer address spaces (type attributes)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59850 --- Comment #34 from Tom Tromey --- Created attachment 33277 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33277&action=edit initial patch This is my current patch. I'm uploading it for safekeeping as I probably won't be working on this

[Bug c/61861] Incorrect column number for -Wdiscarded-qualifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61861 Dodji Seketeli changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org Resolu

[Bug preprocessor/61817] Inconsistent location of tokens in the expansion list of a built-in macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817 Dodji Seketeli changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chengniansun at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug preprocessor/61817] Inconsistent location of tokens in the expansion list of a built-in macro

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61817 --- Comment #1 from Dodji Seketeli --- I sent a patch for this at http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/316794

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kcc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from

[Bug c/57612] add builtin to assert that expression does not have side effects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57612 --- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey --- You can see the thread here: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/343858/ My proposed patch didn't handle C++, which seems like something it probably should do.

[Bug c++/62064] New: Private inheritance and conversion function id in class member access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62064 Bug ID: 62064 Summary: Private inheritance and conversion function id in class member access Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/62061] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20100302 cp_lto_20100302_0.o-cp_lto_20100302_1.o link, -flto -fabi-version=2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62061 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- This ICE can be triggered also on x86_64 Fedora 20 by passing -fno-use-linker-plugin to testsuite flags: make check-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-fno-use-linker-plugin lto.exp=20100302_?.C" FAIL: g++

[Bug c++/62063] g++ disregards template specialization and skips try/catch blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62063 --- Comment #2 from Ferenc Géczi --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > (In reply to Ferenc Géczi from comment #0) > > Created attachment 33276 [details] > > Source code for reproducing the reported issue > > > > g++ disregards that

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug c++/62063] g++ disregards template specialization and skips try/catch blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62063 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Ferenc Géczi from comment #0) > Created attachment 33276 [details] > Source code for reproducing the reported issue > > g++ disregards that template specialization might happen in a different

[Bug c/28901] -Wunused-variable ignores unused const initialised variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28901 Tom Tromey changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/62063] New: g++ disregards template specialization and skips try/catch blocks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62063 Bug ID: 62063 Summary: g++ disregards template specialization and skips try/catch blocks Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/62035] [4.9/4.10 Regression] wrong code building libapache-mod-perl with -O1, works with -O1 -fno-tree-dse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > Marc, do you think it's possible to warn about such "return of local > addresses"? It doesn't seem easy. Here are some random thoughts. At the exit of a block, w

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 --- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 33275 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33275&action=edit script to find differences It seems we're missing more changes: ... $ ./find.sh --- compiler-rt/test/

[Bug c++/62062] Missed optimization: write ptr reloaded in each loop iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62062 --- Comment #3 from petschy at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Your inline asm is broken. How? In unaliased_storeb()? That's for only proving that the redundant loads/stores are not an artifact of aliasing, and is n

[Bug c++/62062] Missed optimization: write ptr reloaded in each loop iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62062 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Your inline asm is broken. This sounds like a missing partial store not being optimized. Not something we do right now. Refernces are pointers really, syntax hides the semantics.

[Bug c++/62062] Missed optimization: write ptr reloaded in each loop iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62062 --- Comment #1 from petschy at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 33274 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33274&action=edit source

[Bug c++/62062] New: Missed optimization: write ptr reloaded in each loop iteration

++ --disable-multilib --program-suffix=-4.9.2 Thread model: posix gcc version 4.9.2 20140808 (prerelease) (GCC) compiler/linker flags used: g++-4.9.2 -c 20140725-reg_vs_mem.cpp -g -std=c++11 -Wall -Wextra -Werror -Wundef -Wshadow -O3 -fno-tree-vectorize g++-4.9.2 -o 20140725-reg_vs_mem 20140725-reg_vs_mem.o

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 --- Comment #2 from Maxim Ostapenko --- (In reply to vries from comment #1) > Tentative patch: > ... > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C > b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C > index a937614..90dfb19 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsu

[Bug rtl-optimization/62004] dead type-unsafe load replaces type-safe load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62004 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/62030] wrong code due to ifcvt merging two stores which have different aliasing sets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/62030] wrong code due to ifcvt merging two stores which have different aliasing sets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62030 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Assignee|unass

[Bug rtl-optimization/62004] dead type-unsafe load replaces type-safe load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62004 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |vries at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug lto/62061] FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20100302 cp_lto_20100302_0.o-cp_lto_20100302_1.o link, -flto -fabi-version=2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62061 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Created attachment 33273 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33273&action=edit Object files

[Bug testsuite/62060] g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chefmax at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug lto/62061] New: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20100302 cp_lto_20100302_0.o-cp_lto_20100302_1.o link, -flto -fabi-version=2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62061 Bug ID: 62061 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/lto/20100302 cp_lto_20100302_0.o-cp_lto_20100302_1.o link, -flto -fabi-version=2 Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Stat

[Bug tree-optimization/52904] -Wstrict-overflow false alarm with bounded loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52904 kugan at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug lto/62032] FAIL: vsnprintf-chk.c execution, -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62032 --- Comment #5 from amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: amker Date: Fri Aug 8 10:21:12 2014 New Revision: 213755 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=213755&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR lto/62032 * lto/lto-lang.c (lto_init): Switch mis-ma

[Bug c++/61341] internal compiler error: in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:11313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61341 Dmitry changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trtrmitya at gmail dot com --- Comment #2 from

[Bug testsuite/62060] New: g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62060 Bug ID: 62060 Summary: g++.dg/tsan/cond_race.C triggers heap-use-after-free Product: gcc Version: 4.10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug tree-optimization/61619] Benefits from -ftree-vectorize lost easily when changing unrelated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61619 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [4.10 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [4.10 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 Alexander Ivchenko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aivchenk at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/62035] [4.9/4.10 Regression] wrong code building libapache-mod-perl with -O1, works with -O1 -fno-tree-dse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||glisse at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/62035] [4.9/4.10 Regression] wrong code building libapache-mod-perl with -O1, works with -O1 -fno-tree-dse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62035 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/62059] New: signed integer overflow in diagnostic.c adjust_line

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62059 Bug ID: 62059 Summary: signed integer overflow in diagnostic.c adjust_line Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c/62058] New: Undefined behaviour in tree-data-ref.c with options -O1 -ftree-loop-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62058 Bug ID: 62058 Summary: Undefined behaviour in tree-data-ref.c with options -O1 -ftree-loop-vectorize Product: gcc Version: 4.9.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: m

[Bug tree-optimization/62053] [4.10 Regression] ICE: in remap_type_1, at tree-inline.c:540

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62053 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug target/62055] missed optimization: recognize fnabs (FP negative absolute value) (x86-64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62055 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug target/51726] LTO and attribute 'selectany'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51726 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Com

[Bug c++/62057] __builtin_offsetof works but std::offsetof doesn't

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62057 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/62057] New: __builtin_offsetof works but std::offsetof doesn't

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62057 Bug ID: 62057 Summary: __builtin_offsetof works but std::offsetof doesn't Product: gcc Version: 4.6.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component