[Bug target/80468] New: [7 Regression] ICE on invalid AVX512 code with -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80468 Bug ID: 80468 Summary: [7 Regression] ICE on invalid AVX512 code with -m32 Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code Severity: normal

[Bug c++/80469] New: Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 Bug ID: 80469 Summary: Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden Product: gcc Version: 5.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/80468] [7 Regression] ICE on invalid AVX512 code with -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80468 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |error-recovery Priority|P3

[Bug c++/80469] Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/80469] Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- In other words, don't use -fvisibility=hidden when you build subimpl.cpp.

[Bug c++/80469] Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 --- Comment #3 from Ubikovich --- >> You need to provide the definition of dothis() somewhere. There is the definition: // subimpl.cpp #include "subimpl.h" void A::dothis() {}

[Bug c++/80469] Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Ubikovich from comment #3) > >> You need to provide the definition of dothis() somewhere. > > There is the definition: > > // subimpl.cpp > #include "subimpl.h" > void A::dothis() {} Yea

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/80453] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7 Regression] another |another compare-debug

[Bug inline-asm/80470] New: Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 Bug ID: 80470 Summary: Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target Product: gcc Version: 7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: i

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 41232 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41232&action=edit test-case

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak --- You should not clobber esp.

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > You should not clobber esp. Works for me, thanks. Can you please explain me why it makes problem? Is it because not enough registers or?

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2) > > You should not clobber esp. > > Works for me, thanks. Can you please explain me why it makes problem? Is it > because

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think we have other PRs that ICE or do bad things if "esp"/"rsp" is clobbered in inline-asm, e.g. PR80367 recently.

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Thanks both. Better error than a strange behavior. Well, would it worth for somehow more explicitly document that clobbering stack pointer is a wrong think/invalid?

[Bug target/66334] cleanup block fails to initialize EBX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66334 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/80453] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- So the issue is that vn_phi_eq depends on cond_stmts_equal_p which may change if we value-number the controlling condition after the PHI itself which can trivially happen with SCC based value-numbering as co

[Bug middle-end/80423] [7 Regression] GC related -fcompare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80423 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Apr 20 09:18:02 2017 New Revision: 247014 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247014&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/80423 * tree.h (build_array_type): Add type

[Bug libstdc++/69769] arithmetic operation on pointer to a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69769 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Wolfgang Roehrl from comment #0) > The compiler accepts this programm despite of performing an arithmetic > operation on pointer to a function. Arithmetic on (non-atomic) function pointers is

[Bug debug/56950] compare-debug failure for gcc.dg/pr41345.c with fschedule-insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56950 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/54077] Bytemark FP EMULATION 9%-15% slower than with clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54077 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/80423] [7 Regression] GC related -fcompare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80423 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/79534] [7 Regression] tree-ifcombine aarch64 performance regression with trunk@245151

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534 --- Comment #10 from James Greenhalgh --- The most striking improvement was in libquantum, for which we saw a 15% performance improvement on Cortex-A72 (3% on cortex-A57) directly attributable to basic block ordering after this patch. Otherwise,

[Bug target/53877] __lzcnt_u16/__lzcnt_u32/__lzcnt_u64 aren't implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53877 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug inline-asm/80470] Can't compile wait4 implementation on i586 target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80470 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 41233 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41233&action=edit Another test-case There's another test-case which is sensible to -O, which causes an inlining to happen and afte

[Bug c++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/51222] [C++11][SFINAE] Unevaluated combined delete new expression completely broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51222 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- We should revisit the library traits now this is fixed: // Implementation for non-reference types. To meet the proper // variable definition semantics, we also need to test for // is_destructible in

[Bug debug/80453] [6/7 Regression] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|NEW

[Bug debug/80453] [6/7 Regression] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 41234 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41234&action=edit patch Patch I am testing that is less pessimizing (we need to remember valueized controlling condition args).

[Bug target/71607] [5/6/7 Regression] [ARM] ice due to forbidden enabled attribute dependency on instruction operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71607 --- Comment #12 from Prakhar Bahuguna --- (In reply to Christophe Monat from comment #10) > (In reply to Ramana Radhakrishnan from comment #9) > > Hello Ramana, > > Is there a plan to have this patch delivered upstream at some point in the > ne

[Bug rtl-optimization/30455] i386 generates unnecessary TEST instructions for arithmetic ops on memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30455 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80426] [6 Regression] wrong manipulation of range based on INT_MIN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80426 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Target Milestone|7.0

[Bug middle-end/80421] [5 Regression] Case dispatch is scrambled in switch-statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80421 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug rtl-optimization/80429] -fcompare-debug failure on ppc64le with LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.0.1 Known to fail|7.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/80429] -fcompare-debug failure on ppc64le with LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429 --- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Fixed on trunk (sofar)? Yes.

[Bug rtl-optimization/80429] -fcompare-debug failure on ppc64le with LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80429 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- Yes sorry, fixed on trunk. Backports pending.

[Bug tree-optimization/80430] Vectorizer undervalues cost of alias checking for versioning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80430 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/80450] -std=c99 breaks -frounding-math on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80450 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[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 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|7.0 |6.4

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71250 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov --- Author: amonakov Date: Thu Apr 20 10:23:38 2017 New Revision: 247018 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247018&root=gcc&view=rev Log: doc: mention handling of {0} in -Wmissing-field-initializers (PR 71

[Bug c++/80439] __attribute__((target("xxx"))) not applied to lambdas

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80439 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Hmm, I think it would make sense if lambdas (and nested functions) "inherit" both target and optimize attributes from their parents.

[Bug c++/80456] 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 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- How is the C++ abstract machine defined in this case? I don't think you can constexpr evaluate any volatile load -- but of course in this case 'this' shouldn't be considered volatile in that sense?

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target Milestone|

[Bug target/80450] -std=c99 breaks -frounding-math on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80450 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/71991] Inconsistency for __attribute__ ((__always_inline__)) among LTO and non-LTO compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71991 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- Ok, the first test-case started to fail w/ LTO from r217659. Honza, can you please take a look and provide hint what to do?

[Bug tree-optimization/57245] Floating-point constant truncation ignores -frounding-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57245 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug rtl-optimization/80463] [5/6/7 Regression] ICE with -fselective-scheduling2 and -fvar-tracking-assignments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80463 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Priority|P3

[Bug target/80464] [7 regression] S/390: ICE failed to split vector move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80464 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P2

[Bug c++/80456] 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 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yeah, it doesn't need to evaluate 'this' in that declaration, it's calling a static member function.

[Bug tree-optimization/57245] Floating-point constant truncation ignores -frounding-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57245 --- Comment #3 from nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- note that this may cause the omission of underflow, overflow and inexact exceptions too (so in principle it's an invalid transformation even without -frounding-math but with -ftrapping-math ): float

[Bug c++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > Daniel, please see above. Sorry for the late response. I would like to shortly double-check, can you await a definitive response until tomorrow?

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Of course. Your response is not late, I just couldn't CC you and attach the patch at the same time, so mentioned you in a follow-up :-)

[Bug c/80468] [7/8 Regression] ICE on invalid AVX512 code with -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80468 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/43820] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] auto_ptr used with incomplete type no longer triggers warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43820 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED Target Milestone|4.4.5

[Bug c++/80469] Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 --- Comment #5 from Ubikovich --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4) > (In reply to Ubikovich from comment #3) > > >> You need to provide the definition of dothis() somewhere. > > > > There is the definition: > > > > // subimpl.c

[Bug c++/80472] New: cannot use push/pop with #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wsystem-headers"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80472 Bug ID: 80472 Summary: cannot use push/pop with #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wsystem-headers" Product: gcc Version: 6.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diag

[Bug c++/80469] Undefined symbol for abstract class impl with -fvisibility=hidden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80469 --- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Ubikovich from comment #5) > (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #4) > > (In reply to Ubikovich from comment #3) > > > >> You need to provide the definition of dothis() somewhere.

[Bug c++/80452] [DR 1579] incorrect value category deduced for return value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80452 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/80472] cannot use push/pop with #pragma GCC diagnostic warning "-Wsystem-headers"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80472 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/80380] misleading behavior with designated initializers for std::vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80380 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/69967] #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored being ignored for -Wunused-variable in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69967 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/79862] Compilation error while building libstdc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79862 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Apr 20 13:04:28 2017 New Revision: 247021 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247021&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR79862 check macro for type aliases that depend on PR libstdc

[Bug libstdc++/79862] Compilation error while building libstdc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79862 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/80456] 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 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/80456] 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 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Oops, sorry Marek, seems you've said all that already, ignore my comment... :(.

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #6 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Created attachment 41235 [details] > avoid over-aligned new in is_constructible > > [..]. We can also combine it > with the delete check, because PR 51222 is

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #6) > Do you recommend to reopen 51222 or should I open a separate bug? I'm > inclined to create a new one at the moment. Agreed, let's have a new bug for that. >

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Maybe we should just ask Jason to suppress the notes in a SFINAE context.

[Bug c++/80473] New: [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 Bug ID: 80473 Summary: [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #9 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > Maybe we should just ask Jason to suppress the notes in a SFINAE context. Yes, that sounds like a preferred direction to me.

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug debug/80453] [6/7/8 Regression] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Apr 20 14:23:10 2017 New Revision: 247024 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247024&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-04-20 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/80453

[Bug debug/80453] [6/7 Regression] another compare-debug failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80453 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.0 Summary|[6/7/8 Regressio

[Bug target/57796] AVX2 gather vectorization: code bloat and reduction of performance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57796 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Apr 20 14:26:26 2017 New Revision: 247026 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247026&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-04-20 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/57796

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.2

[Bug rtl-optimization/80474] New: ipa-cp wrongly adding LO(symbol) twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80474 Bug ID: 80474 Summary: ipa-cp wrongly adding LO(symbol) twice Product: gcc Version: 6.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimi

[Bug target/71617] rs6000.c:8483:32: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type [-Wtype-limits]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71617 --- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool --- This does not seem to warn with trunk anymore.

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- This doesn't even depend on system headers, the following prints 18 lines of notes and location info (but no warnings) when -w is used: template T&& declval(); template struct is_constructible { enum { va

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80457 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- Patch here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-04/msg00808.html This is being held for GCC 8.

[Bug libstdc++/68397] std::tr1::expint fails in __expint_En_cont_frac for some long double arguments due to low __max_iter value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68397 --- Comment #3 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: emsr Date: Thu Apr 20 15:41:59 2017 New Revision: 247027 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247027&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2017-04-20 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> PR

[Bug target/78090] [x86_64]: GCC allows integer register for inter unit conversion under -mtune-ctrl=^inter_unit_conversions .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78090 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ra | Status|NEW

[Bug c++/79078] Warnings from deprecated attribute are too noisy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79078 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/80475] New: Unevaluated combined delete new expression doesn't handle access error in class template SFINAE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80475 Bug ID: 80475 Summary: Unevaluated combined delete new expression doesn't handle access error in class template SFINAE Product: gcc Version: 7.0.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 --- Comment #10 from Daniel Krügler --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #6) > > Do you recommend to reopen 51222 or should I open a separate bug? I'm > > inclined to create a new one at the

[Bug c++/61806] [C++11] Expression sfinae w/o access gives hard error in partial template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61806 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-12-14 00:00:00 |2017-4-20 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Apr 20 18:02:05 2017 New Revision: 247033 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247033&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/80473 allow suppressing notes about over-aligned new gcc/cp:

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Apr 20 18:36:27 2017 New Revision: 247035 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247035&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/80473 allow suppressing notes about over-aligned new Backport fro

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/80473] [7/8 Regression] notes about over-aligned new not suppressed in system-headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80473 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@sven-woop.de --- Comment #6 from

[Bug libstdc++/80390] std::pair of aligned type gives bogus warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80390 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/78090] [x86_64]: GCC allows integer register for inter unit conversion under -mtune-ctrl=^inter_unit_conversions .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78090 --- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Thu Apr 20 19:04:36 2017 New Revision: 247036 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=247036&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/78090 * config/i386/constraints.md (Yc):

[Bug libstdc++/54924] Warn for std::string constructor with wrong size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54924 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- As a heads up, with the patch for bug 79234 applied and with -Wsystem-headers explicitly specified GCC issues the warnings below (the -Warray-bounds is printed even without the patch). Unfortunately, with the

[Bug target/78090] [x86_64]: GCC allows integer register for inter unit conversion under -mtune-ctrl=^inter_unit_conversions .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78090 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/79534] [7/8 Regression] tree-ifcombine aarch64 performance regression with trunk@245151

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79534 --- Comment #11 from Brian Rzycki --- HI James, if you don't see any major regressions and some good uplifts I understand if this case is considered marginal. From my perspective I think it's best to close this ticket and move on to more pressing

[Bug libstdc++/80251] Is the is_aggregate meta function missing?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80251 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/80425] Extra inter-unit register move with zero-extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80425 --- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov --- We have the following fragment: 8: r96:DI=zero_extend(r93:SI) REG_DEAD r93:SI 13: r91:V8DI#0=r95:V16SI>>r96:DI REG_DEAD r96:DI REG_DEAD r95:V16SI IRA allocates general regs to

  1   2   >