[Bug testsuite/80221] Contrib script to rewrite testcase from absolute to relative line numbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80221 --- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries --- Author: vries Date: Wed Apr 19 06:55:33 2017 New Revision: 246988 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246988&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Use relative line number for subsequent dg directives 2017-04-19 Tom de

[Bug c++/80290] [6/7 Regression] g++ uses unreasonable amount of memory compiling nested string maps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80290 --- Comment #15 from Jason Merrill --- Adding a timevar to cxx_eval_outermost_constant_expr shows minimal time spent in constexpr evaluation; it also doesn't show up in -fmem-report. So constexpr isn't the problem. It seems to me that the probl

[Bug c++/80458] [-Wreturn-type] false negative on missing return statement in a member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80458 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I think there is a dup of this bug already. Basically what Jonathan is saying is correct.

[Bug bootstrap/80447] Profiled LTO bootstrap fails on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80447 --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #9) > > It's possible that the path is not reachable and GCC doesn't see it. Well, 18 exabytes allocations or memsets would not go unnoticed for very long...

[Bug rtl-optimization/80401] [7 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/dimode_off.c and gcc.target/powerpc/pr79038-1.c fail starting with r246764

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80401 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #6 fr

[Bug target/74563] [6 regression] Classic MIPS16 (non-MIPS16e) function return broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[6/7 regression] Classic|[6 regression] Classic

[Bug target/74563] [6/7 regression] Classic MIPS16 (non-MIPS16e) function return broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563 --- Comment #9 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Wed Apr 19 04:52:54 2017 New Revision: 246987 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246987&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/74563 * mips.md ({return,simple_return}_internal)

[Bug c++/80460] New: Non-sensical fallthrough warning after [[noreturn]] function leading to __builtin_unreachable()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80460 Bug ID: 80460 Summary: Non-sensical fallthrough warning after [[noreturn]] function leading to __builtin_unreachable() Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/55496] False positive -Werror=uninitialized breaks profiledbootstrap and bootstrap-lto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55496 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug bootstrap/80455] -Werror=coverage-mismatch in profiledboostrap despite --disable-werror

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80455 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/69725] LTO/PGO bootstrap fails with in-tree gmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69725 --- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor --- *** Bug 80455 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/74563] [6/7 regression] Classic MIPS16 (non-MIPS16e) function return broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So AFAICT this pattern: (define_insn "*" [(any_return)] "" { operands[0] = gen_rtx_REG (Pmode, RETURN_ADDR_REGNUM); return mips_output_jump (operands, 0, -1, false); } [(set_attr "type"

[Bug c++/80459] [7 regression] c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80459 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug c++/80459] New: [7 regression] c-c++-common/opaque-vector.c FAILs

: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: ro at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.12, powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu Between 20170417 (r246952) and 20170418 (r246971), a c++ testsuite regression occured: +FAIL: c-c++-common

[Bug c++/80458] [-Wreturn-type] false negative on missing return statement in a member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80458 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this is because an unused inline function doesn't generate any code, so isn't seen by the compiler passes that produce the warning.

[Bug c++/80458] [-Wreturn-type] false negative on missing return statement in a member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80458 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The two cases are not equivalent, because the member function is also inline. If you add 'inline' to the second example you get no warning for that one too. In both cases you get a warning for the inline f

[Bug other/72815] libmpx on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815 --- Comment #2 from vicencb at gmail dot com --- I think the bug was triggered with buildroot version eb1a30a3d92c8ddbcc295cb48226604d6d881e25 following these steps: cat << EOF > .config BR2_x86_i686=y BR2_DL_DIR="/media/sources" BR2_HOST_DIR="/op

[Bug c++/80458] New: [-Wreturn-type] false negative on missing return statement in a member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80458 Bug ID: 80458 Summary: [-Wreturn-type] false negative on missing return statement in a member function Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug bootstrap/80455] -Werror=coverage-mismatch in profiledboostrap despite --disable-werror

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80455 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #51 from Jürgen Reuter --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #50) > (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #48) > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #47) > > > I'll try some bisection. > > > > Did you get the full tarba

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #50 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #48) > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #47) > > I'll try some bisection. > > Did you get the full tarball running on an x86_64? Yes, at least up to the point

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #49 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #39) > Configure fails when I set FCFLAGS='-m32' with > ** > configure: error: Fortran compiler does

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #48 from Jürgen Reuter --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #47) > I'll try some bisection. Did you get the full tarball running on an x86_64?

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #47 from Thomas Koenig --- I'll try some bisection.

[Bug tree-optimization/80426] [7 Regression] wrong manipulation of range based on INT_MIN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #41214|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug other/78068] warning: implicit declaration of function ‘time’; did you mean ‘nice’? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78068 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/80457] vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/80457] New: vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 Bug ID: 80457 Summary: vectorizable_condition does not update the vectorizer cost model Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/80456] New: calling constexpr member function from volatile-qualified member function: error: ‘this’ is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80456 Bug ID: 80456 Summary: calling constexpr member function from volatile-qualified member function: error: ‘this’ is not a constant expression Product: gcc Version:

[Bug lto/56891] Bad static analysis on fread() gives spurious warning on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56891 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/80121] Memory leak with derived-type intent(out) argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80121 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #6) > (In reply to janus from comment #5) > > In trans-decl.c there is a function called 'init_intent_out_dt', which takes > > care of deallocating the allocatable co

[Bug c++/66139] destructor not called for members of partially constructed anonymous struct/array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139 --- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kamiński --- Example of some real life safe-code (now raw allocations, STL container used), that is leaking: #include #include #include using namespace std; struct Test { string a; string b; }; Test make_

[Bug gcov-profile/67463] PGO (Profile Guided Optimizations) are not applied with gcc-5.2.1 (they are fine on gcc-4.9.x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67463 --- Comment #3 from Shlomi Fish --- Hi Martin, thanks for returning to me. (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > Hi. > > Sorry for waiting for some time. I tested your benchmark, where I had to > disable tcmalloc as I can't link it with

[Bug bootstrap/80447] Profiled LTO bootstrap fails on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80447 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug fortran/80361] [5/6/7 Regression] [OOP] bogus recursive call to nonrecursive procedure with -fcheck=recursion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361 --- Comment #24 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #23) > Our code and testsuite now works without problems when using -fcheck=all. > Seems also no regressions on our side. Thanks for the feedback!

[Bug tree-optimization/80443] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:367

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80443 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80443] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in set_value_range, at tree-vrp.c:367

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80443 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 18 19:17:32 2017 New Revision: 246981 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246981&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/80443 * tree-vrp.c (intersect_ranges)

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #46 from Thomas Koenig --- gcc version 7.0.1 20170227 (experimental) (GCC) also fails.

[Bug middle-end/79665] gcc's signed (x*x)/200 is slower than clang's

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79665 wilco at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug rtl-optimization/80357] [7 Regression] ICE in model_update_limit_points_in_group, at haifa-sched.c:1982 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/80357] [7 Regression] ICE in model_update_limit_points_in_group, at haifa-sched.c:1982 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80357 --- Comment #14 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Tue Apr 18 18:49:19 2017 New Revision: 246980 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246980&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ PR rtl-optimization/80357 * haifa-sched.c (tmp_bitmap

[Bug bootstrap/80455] -Werror=coverage-mismatch in profiledboostrap despite --disable-werror

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80455 --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- The same error happens in both a powerpc64le build as well as on x86_64.

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #45 from Jürgen Reuter --- Looking into my backups, it seems that the revision 241975 from Nov 8, 2016 was still working without the `volatile` hack. Then I upgraded in early February to revision 245197 where the problem is already pr

[Bug ipa/65972] ICE after applying a patch to enable verify_ssa with auto-pgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972 --- Comment #9 from Sebastian Pop --- In the link in the previous comment, Richi has a similar patch as suggested by Dehao pending review/test/commit: let's close this bug when Richi's patch lands in trunk.

[Bug bootstrap/80455] New: -Werror=coverage-mismatch in profiledboostrap despite --disable-werror

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80455 Bug ID: 80455 Summary: -Werror=coverage-mismatch in profiledboostrap despite --disable-werror Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/65972] ICE after applying a patch to enable verify_ssa with auto-pgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972 --- Comment #8 from Sebastian Pop --- Yes please! This patch also solves the problem I was chasing a week or so ago: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00067.html I also know that this is ICE-ing on a large proprietary project when I

[Bug middle-end/80422] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 32-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in operator[], at vec.h:732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/80422] [7 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 in 32-bit mode on x86_64-linux-gnu: in operator[], at vec.h:732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80422 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Tue Apr 18 17:31:30 2017 New Revision: 246975 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246975&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/80422 * cfgcleanup.c (try_crossjump_to_edge):

[Bug target/68163] GCC on power8 does not issue the stxsspx instruction on power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68163 --- Comment #2 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Tue Apr 18 17:08:16 2017 New Revision: 246974 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246974&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Add initial patch for pr 68163 Added: branches/ibm/meissner-gcc

[Bug debug/80263] gcc's internal type "sizetype" leaks out as base type name in the DWARF info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80263 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 18 16:58:48 2017 New Revision: 246973 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246973&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR debug/80263 * dwarf2out.c (modified_type_die): Try hard

[Bug target/80099] ICE in rs6000_expand_vector_extract, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:7450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80099 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/80099] ICE in rs6000_expand_vector_extract, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:7450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80099 --- Comment #3 from Michael Meissner --- Author: meissner Date: Tue Apr 18 16:41:06 2017 New Revision: 246972 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246972&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [gcc] 2017-04-18 Michael Meissner PR target/80099

[Bug target/80433] [CRIS] ICE at -O2: unrecognized insn (post_inc on acr) building glibc sha512.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80433 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/53119] -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119 Vincent Lefèvre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net --- Comm

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #4) > Note that that's a different warning: -Wmissing-braces, not > -Wmissing-field-initializers. I believe it would be nice to fix, but > handling of universal

[Bug c/80454] New: -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80454 Bug ID: 80454 Summary: -Wmissing-braces wrongly warns about universal zero initializer {0} Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/80451] [6/7 Regression] return implicit type conversion to std::experimental::optional does not compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80451 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Денис Крыськов from comment #8) > If I understand correctly, > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579 is not > implemented in gcc 5.4 and 6.3. Which means some code r

[Bug sanitizer/80444] -fcompare-debug failures with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80444 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov --- Note that that's a different warning: -Wmissing-braces, not -Wmissing-field-initializers. I believe it would be nice to fix, but handling of universal zero initializers in -Wmissing-braces should be a se

[Bug debug/80453] [7 Regression] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 --- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- git bisect points to r241329: commit 34b94be25f231249fa213152feb6b7208b4c0d13 Author: rguenth Date: Wed Oct 19 08:39:55 2016 + 2016-10-19 Richard Biener * domwalk.c (dom_wal

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre --- However, it seems that GCC doesn't support the { 0 } idiom in all cases. For instance: #include struct { struct { int a; long b; } x; int y; } s = { { 1 }, 1 }; struct { struct { int a; long b; } x; int

[Bug fortran/80361] [5/6/7 Regression] [OOP] bogus recursive call to nonrecursive procedure with -fcheck=recursion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80361 --- Comment #23 from Jürgen Reuter --- Our code and testsuite now works without problems when using -fcheck=all. Seems also no regressions on our side. Thanks for the quick fix.

[Bug driver/56469] The .gcno file being generated is not cleaned up after gcc exits with an error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56469 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/74563] [6/7 regression] Classic MIPS16 (non-MIPS16e) function return broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=74563 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I was essentially thinking the same WRT a proposed patch. My concern is whether something might be passing in an unexpected rtx for operands[0] and whether or not we can get into the other pattern for MIPS

[Bug debug/57737] -fopenmp + -femit-struct-debug-reduced/baseonly = internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57737 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #44 from Bijan Chokoufe --- Created attachment 41222 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41222&action=edit Diff of generalized assembly using extended precision with and without volatile

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #43 from Bijan Chokoufe --- I actually made the same mistake when generating the diffs. I attach the correct diff when --with-precision=extended is given to configure. Similar contents though, as far as I can judge. Strangely, the cod

[Bug other/53742] bad assembler output when compiling with LTO and PGO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53742 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/80444] -fcompare-debug failures with -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80444 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 18 15:02:06 2017 New Revision: 246971 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246971&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR sanitizer/80444 * sancov.c (sancov_pass): Use gsi_start

[Bug ipa/65972] ICE after applying a patch to enable verify_ssa with auto-pgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65972 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/80435] Expose __gcov_flush to allow developers to dump coverage numbers on demand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80435 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug gcov-profile/55121] ICE in if-conversion with PGO (ARM)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55121 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/53727] ICE when compiling firefox with PGO and LTO (not OOM)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53727 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/53743] ICE when compiling firefox with PGO and LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53743 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #42 from Thomas Koenig --- Using ./configure --with-precision=extended results in checking whether gfortran supports c_float128 (a gfortran extension)... yes checking the requested floating point precision... extended configure: err

[Bug middle-end/67463] PGO (Profile Guided Optimizations) are not applied with gcc-5.2.1 (they are fine on gcc-4.9.x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67463 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #41 from Thomas Koenig --- Created attachment 41221 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41221&action=edit Config log for PowerPC Here's the config.log for PowerPC.

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #40 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > You have to > > ./configure --with-precision=extended I don't think this works on powerpc: no 80-bit fp.

[Bug middle-end/79788] ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9557

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79788 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/80375] [5/6 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9382 with -ftrapv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80375 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #39 from Bijan Chokoufe --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #38) > (In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #37) > > Concerning your PowerPC compilation: Have you set FCLAGS yourself > > No, I didn't.; I just ran "./configure

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov --- Thanks. Basically the documentation can be enhanced to mention that GCC shouldn't (and wouldn't) warn for universal zero initializer, which is '{0}' in C and just '{}' in C++. After a day or so I can subm

[Bug libstdc++/80451] [6/7 Regression] return implicit type conversion to std::experimental::optional does not compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80451 --- Comment #8 from Денис Крыськов --- If I understand correctly, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1579 is not implemented in gcc 5.4 and 6.3. Which means some code runs slower than is should. To be sure that a fast co

[Bug debug/80453] New: [7 Regression] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 Bug ID: 80453 Summary: [7 Regression] another compare-debug failure Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debu

[Bug target/79242] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:6029

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79242 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/69991] missed tail merge optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69991 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/71250] -Wmissing-field-initializers documentation is incomplete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug driver/79637] missing documentation for PARAM_MAX_FSM_THREAD_LENGTH

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79637 --- Comment #3 from Sebastian Pop --- As to why we call it a "finite state automaton" jump threading, that is because this transform shows to be useful when the switch statement in the previous example is contained in a loop, which is the way mos

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #38 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Bijan Chokoufe from comment #37) > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #35) > > > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 shower]$ pwd > > /home/tkoenig/whizard-2.4.1/src/shower > > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 showe

[Bug other/72815] libmpx on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72815 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/79453] Translator unfriendly string in avr_pgm_check_var_decl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79453 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Target||avr Priority|P3

[Bug middle-end/70140] Inefficient expansion of __builtin_mempcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70140 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug driver/79637] missing documentation for PARAM_MAX_FSM_THREAD_LENGTH

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79637 --- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop --- Here is what I see in doc/invoke.texi: @item max-fsm-thread-path-insns Maximum number of instructions to copy when duplicating blocks on a finite state automaton jump thread path. The default is 100. @item

[Bug middle-end/70897] Confused branch predictors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70897 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #37 from Bijan Chokoufe --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #35) > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 shower]$ pwd > /home/tkoenig/whizard-2.4.1/src/shower > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 shower]$ grep -i volatile *.f90 > [tkoenig@gcc1-power7 showe

[Bug driver/69754] --print-{file,prog}-name don't work for liblto_plugin.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69754 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/79435] [7 Regression] ICE on invalid C++ code (with member access into an incomplete type) on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79435 --- Comment #6 from Georg-Johann Lay --- Author: gjl Date: Tue Apr 18 13:23:01 2017 New Revision: 246967 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246967&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ Backport from 2017-04-18 trunk r246966. PR target/79

[Bug libstdc++/80448] #include fails with Clang 5.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80448 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Apparently related to CWG1351 and solved by removing 'noexcept' from the ctor.

[Bug fortran/79430] [7 Regression] action of statement incorrectly optimised away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79430 --- Comment #36 from Bijan Chokoufe --- Created attachment 41219 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41219&action=edit Diff of generalized assembly with and without volatile

[Bug middle-end/79788] ICE in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.c:9557

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79788 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 18 13:15:46 2017 New Revision: 246965 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=246965&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/79788 PR middle-end/80375 * c-common

  1   2   >