[Bug c++/66255] [6 Regression] ice in retrieve_specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66255 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug c++/66607] ICE instantiating a template on a function reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66607 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/58063] default arguments evaluated twice per call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58063 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com

[Bug c++/58616] [meta-bug] nsdmi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58616 Bug 58616 depends on bug 61856, which changed state. Bug 61856 Summary: Ternary operator in an NSDMI causes double evaluation https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61856 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/61856] Ternary operator in an NSDMI causes double evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61856 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/66614] LRA might fail to eliminate dead code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66614 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/65871] bzhi builtin/intrinsic wrongly assumes bzhi instruction doesn't set the ZF flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871 --- Comment #10 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to James Almer from comment #9) > Created attachment 35804 [details] > Preprocessed code where a test instruction is still generated > > Please look at the attachment. > > [jamrial@archVM ~]$ gcc -

[Bug target/65871] bzhi builtin/intrinsic wrongly assumes bzhi instruction doesn't set the ZF flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65871 --- Comment #11 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #10) > Because of the cost model. Combine pass says: Testing the patch: --cut here-- Index: i386.c === -

[Bug c/66613] error in evaluationg cexp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613 Michael Lehn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michael.l...@uni-ulm.de --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug c++/66615] New: Ambiguous conversion operators, explicit unambiguous conversion operator and copy initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66615 Bug ID: 66615 Summary: Ambiguous conversion operators, explicit unambiguous conversion operator and copy initialization Product: gcc Version: 5.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/66614] LRA might fail to eliminate dead code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66614 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- this is what I understand from lra in my own words: lra () consists of a sequence of for (;;) { ... lra_eliminate (false, false); /* Do inheritance only for regular algorithms.

[Bug c++/66615] Ambiguous conversion operators, explicit conversion operator and copy-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66615 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Status

[Bug target/63408] [4.8/4.9/5/6 regression] GCC emits incorrect fixed->fp conversion instruction on Cortex-M4 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63408 --- Comment #7 from Itay Perl --- Any news? This bug still prevents us from compiling our code with optimizations. Thanks.

[Bug ipa/66616] New: fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66616 Bug ID: 66616 Summary: fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ipa Assignee:

[Bug ipa/66616] fipa-cp-clone ignores thunk

=infra --with-mpfr=infra --with-mpc=infra --with-isl=infra --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=yes,rtl --enable-languages=c,c++ Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20150621 (experimental) (GCC) ...

[Bug c++/60397] The value of char16_t u'\uffff' is 0xdfff instead of 0xffff

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60397 Wesley J. Landaker changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug preprocessor/53690] [C++11] \u0000 and \U00000000 are wrongly encoded as U+0001.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53690 --- Comment #8 from Wesley J. Landaker --- This major bug -- with security implications -- is still present in GCC 5.1.1. $ g++ --version g++ (Debian 5.1.1-20) 5.1.1 20150616 Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free softwar

[Bug c++/66617] New: C++11 {brace} initialisation of virtually inherited derived class = failure to override base virtual function, unless all base ctors have same signature

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617 Bug ID: 66617 Summary: C++11 {brace} initialisation of virtually inherited derived class = failure to override base virtual function, unless all base ctors have same signature

[Bug c++/66617] C++11 {brace} initialisation of virtually inherited derived class = failure to override base virtual function, unless all base ctors have same signature

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Boles --- Forgot to add the minimal replication steps mentioned, prepared by a fellow SO users: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/c4d031382115b59a thanks

[Bug fortran/66578] [F2008] Invalid free on allocate(...,source=a(:)) in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578 --- Comment #13 from Mikael Morin --- Created attachment 35823 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35823&action=edit next attempt

[Bug c++/66617] C++11 {brace} initialisation of virtually inherited derived class = failure to override base virtual function, unless all base ctors have same signature

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617 Daniel Boles changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #35822|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/66617] C++11 {brace} initialisation of virtually inherited derived class = failure to override base virtual function, unless all base ctors have same signature

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66617 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Boles --- Created attachment 35824 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35824&action=edit 3 cpp files showing various permutations from totally broken braces, to fully working parentheses Revised versio

[Bug fortran/66578] [F2008] Invalid free on allocate(...,source=a(:)) in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Mikael Morin from comment #13) > Created attachment 35823 [details] > next attempt Looks very good (fixes the test case and the variants I have here). Regression-testing next.

[Bug c/66618] New: Failure to diagnose non-constant initializer for static object with -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66618 Bug ID: 66618 Summary: Failure to diagnose non-constant initializer for static object with -O1 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.4 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/66578] [F2008] Invalid free on allocate(...,source=a(:)) in block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66578 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- Is this something which could also have caused wrong-code issues in other circumstances, which we just didn't happen to find until this was exposed by Andre's patch and the test case? In other words, should

[Bug c/66613] error in evaluationg cexp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66613 Mikhail Maltsev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miyuki at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/66619] New: Internal compiler error: variable template deduced by template argument deduction

-lto --disable-multilib --without-ppl --without-cloog-ppl --enable-checking=release --disable-nls Thread model: posix gcc version 6.0.0 20150621 (experimental) (GCC) COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-o' 'prog.exe' '-std=gnu++1z' '-I' '/usr/local/sprout' '

[Bug target/66620] New: bfin: bfin.c: (hwloop_optimize): gcc_assert (JUMP_P (insn)) fails.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66620 Bug ID: 66620 Summary: bfin: bfin.c: (hwloop_optimize): gcc_assert (JUMP_P (insn)) fails. Product: gcc Version: 6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/66563] [4.9 Regression] ICE (segmentation fault) on sh4-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66563 --- Comment #25 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #22) > Provided that you're right, how would a bug in strlen this explain that gcc > always segfaults when it needs to do float arithmetics? I don't know the

[Bug testsuite/66621] New: [4.9/5/6 Regression] Mistakenly unsupported tests in g++.dg/torture/

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66621 Bug ID: 66621 Summary: [4.9/5/6 Regression] Mistakenly unsupported tests in g++.dg/torture/ Product: gcc Version: 5.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal