[Bug c++/90078] New: ICE with deep templates caused by overflow [PATCH]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90078 Bug ID: 90078 Summary: ICE with deep templates caused by overflow [PATCH] Product: gcc Version: tree-ssa Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/17108] Store with update not generated for a simple loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17108 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug c/90077] musl has no multlib support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90077 Jory A. Pratt changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #46158|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/90077] New: musl has no multlib support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90077 Bug ID: 90077 Summary: musl has no multlib support Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assigne

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #24 from Peter Bergner --- So improve_allocation() initially looks at using r0, but disregards it because check_hard_reg_p() returns false for r0, and that is because we fail this test: /* Checking only profitable hard regs. */

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #23 from Segher Boessenkool --- It says (I added some debug) Insn 50(l0): point = 27 ignoring for conflicts: (reg:SI 0 r0 [ a ]) but non_conflicting_reg_copy_p isn't called at all where it is improving the allocation

[Bug middle-end/90070] Add optimization for optimizing small integer values by fp integral constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #22 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #21) > (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #20) >> The question is why p116 conflicts with hr0. Before RA we have > > That's a bug since register copies should not cr

[Bug c/89798] excessive vector_size silently accepted and truncated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 22:37:12 2019 New Revision: 270331 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270331&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Commit a change missed in r270326: gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: PR c/

[Bug middle-end/89797] ICE on a vector_size (1LU << 33) int variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89797 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 22:37:12 2019 New Revision: 270331 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270331&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Commit a change missed in r270326: gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: PR c/

[Bug middle-end/89288] ICE in tree_code_size, at tree.c:865

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 22:37:12 2019 New Revision: 270331 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270331&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Commit a change missed in r270326: gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: PR c/

[Bug c/88383] ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute with an expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 22:37:12 2019 New Revision: 270331 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270331&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Commit a change missed in r270326: gcc/c-family/ChangeLog: PR c/

[Bug c/89933] [7/8 Regression] ICE in merge_decls, at c/c-decl.c:2517

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] ICE in |[7/8 Regression] ICE in

[Bug c/89933] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in merge_decls, at c/c-decl.c:2517

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89933 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Apr 12 21:45:54 2019 New Revision: 270329 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270329&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/89933 c/ * c-decl.c (merge_decls): When newdecl's typ

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 46157 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46157&action=edit fix Here's a patch. I'm not sure if it will go into GCC 9 or 10.

[Bug c++/82081] Tail call optimisation of noexcept function leads to exception allowed through

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82081 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #21 from Wilco --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #20) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #19) > > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18) > > > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > > > > Popping a

[Bug fortran/90076] New: Polymorphic Allocate on Assignment Memory Leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90076 Bug ID: 90076 Summary: Polymorphic Allocate on Assignment Memory Leak Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fo

[Bug c/90075] New: [AArch64] ICE during RTL pass when member of union passed to copysignf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90075 Bug ID: 90075 Summary: [AArch64] ICE during RTL pass when member of union passed to copysignf Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug debug/90074] New: wrong debug info at -O3

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu Target Milestone: --- It's a latent issue which affects 4.8-6, and 8-trunk. Gcc-7 works fine. It happens at -O3 only. Bisect between gcc-7 and gcc-8 points to r255267. $ gcc-trunk -v gcc version 9.0.1 201

[Bug c/90071] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: SSA corruption

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #20 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #19) > (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18) > > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > > > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3 > > > Poppi

[Bug target/90073] Very slow code for AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- Looking at the attached asm, the main issue is PR 55266 (there should be no copying), and how exactly the copies are done (64/128/256 bits) is almost a detail...

[Bug target/90073] Very slow code for AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073 --- Comment #4 from Rodrigo --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > Fixed on > > https://gitlab.com/x86-gcc/wip/tree/usr/hjl/pr89226/master > > which will be submitted for GCC 10. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 8922

[Bug target/90073] Very slow code for AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/89226] codegen for copying a 512-bit object fails to use avx instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89226 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rcc.dark at gmail dot com --- Comment #7 from

[Bug target/90073] Very slow code for AVX2

> vmovaps %ymm1, (%rdi) > vmovaps %ymm0, 32(%rdi) > vzeroupper > leave > .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8 > ret > .cfi_endproc > .LFE5519: > .size _Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_, .-_Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_ > .ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.1 2019

[Bug middle-end/89797] ICE on a vector_size (1LU << 33) int variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89797 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug target/90073] Very slow code for AVX2

LFE5519: .size _Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_, .-_Z1fRDv8_xRKS_S2_ .ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.1 20190412 (experimental)" .section.note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits [hjl@gnu-cfl-1 gcc]$

[Bug c/89798] excessive vector_size silently accepted and truncated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c/88383] ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute with an expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/89288] ICE in tree_code_size, at tree.c:865

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288 Bug 89288 depends on bug 88383, which changed state. Bug 88383 Summary: ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute with an expression https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c/88383] ICE calling _builtin_has_attribute with an expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88383 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019 New Revision: 270326 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference PR c/89288

[Bug middle-end/89797] ICE on a vector_size (1LU << 33) int variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89797 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019 New Revision: 270326 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference PR c/89288

[Bug c/89798] excessive vector_size silently accepted and truncated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89798 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019 New Revision: 270326 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference PR c/89288

[Bug middle-end/89288] ICE in tree_code_size, at tree.c:865

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89288 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Apr 12 19:01:17 2019 New Revision: 270326 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270326&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c/88383 - ICE calling __builtin_has_attribute on a reference PR c/89288

[Bug target/90073] New: Very slow code for AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90073 Bug ID: 90073 Summary: Very slow code for AVX2 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug fortran/90072] New: Polymorphic Dispatch to Polymophic Return Type Memory Leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90072 Bug ID: 90072 Summary: Polymorphic Dispatch to Polymophic Return Type Memory Leak Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug c/90071] New: internal compiler error: SSA corruption

../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-lto --disable-bootstrap : (reconfigured) ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-lto --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 9.0.1 20190412 (experimental) (GCC) -COMMAND LINE USE

[Bug middle-end/90070] New: Add optimization for optimizing small integer values by fp integral constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070 Bug ID: 90070 Summary: Add optimization for optimizing small integer values by fp integral constant Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enha

[Bug middle-end/90070] Add optimization for optimizing small integer values by fp integral constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90070 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64le-gnu-linux,

[Bug fortran/90069] New: Polymorphic Return Type Memory Leak Without Intermediate Variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90069 Bug ID: 90069 Summary: Polymorphic Return Type Memory Leak Without Intermediate Variable Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/90068] New: Array Constructor Containing Function Call Leaks Memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90068 Bug ID: 90068 Summary: Array Constructor Containing Function Call Leaks Memory Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug translation/90041] Command line option without proper quoting in translation message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- %e/%n still not resolved and won't be until GCC 10.

[Bug rtl-optimization/89965] [8 Regression] wrong code with -O -mtune=nano-x2 -fcaller-saves -fexpensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-ter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[8/9 Regression]

[Bug rtl-optimization/89965] [8/9 Regression] wrong code with -O -mtune=nano-x2 -fcaller-saves -fexpensive-optimizations -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-ter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Apr 12 16:20:21 2019 New Revision: 270323 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270323&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR rtl-optimization/89965 * dce.c: Include rtl-iter.h.

[Bug translation/90041] Command line option without proper quoting in translation message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90041 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Apr 12 16:12:49 2019 New Revision: 270321 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270321&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR translation/90041 * exgettext: Print MissingArgError, U

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #19 from Wilco --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #18) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3 > > Popping a3(r112,l0) -- assign reg 4 > > Popping a2(r11

[Bug c++/87603] [C++17] noexcept isn't special cased for constant expressions anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/87603] [C++17] noexcept isn't special cased for constant expressions anymore

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87603 --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Apr 12 15:29:03 2019 New Revision: 270320 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270320&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/87603 - constexpr functions are no longer noexcept.

[Bug tree-optimization/90055] [7 Regression] Incorrect result with ffast-math + tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > Fixed on trunk with r250959 which is: > > 364bc5b93b76cf88(08 Aug 2017 14:09): [took: 2.844s] result: OK > sum: 0. > SVN revision: 250959 > Author: amker >

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #18 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15) > Popping a5(r116,l0) -- assign reg 3 > Popping a3(r112,l0) -- assign reg 4 > Popping a2(r114,l0) -- assign reg 3 > Popping a0(r11

[Bug target/89993] Inconsistent incoming stack boundary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89993 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/89953] ICE in nothrow_spec_p, at cp/except.c:1244

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89953 --- Comment #4 from rene.r...@fu-berlin.de --- Hi gcc-team, is there any news about this issue? This ICE currently is always triggered when using the range-v3 library using the 1.0-beta branch with concepts. Let me know, if you need more inform

[Bug target/89093] [9 Regression] C++ exception handling clobbers d8 VFP register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89093 --- Comment #45 from Ramana Radhakrishnan --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #42) > Thanks for the explanation. > In that case, I think it would be better to just add > __attribute__((target("general-regs-only"))) > to the > #ifdef __AR

[Bug fortran/90067] New: Loop variables in Fortran 'do' statements within a compute construct must be predetermined private

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90067 Bug ID: 90067 Summary: Loop variables in Fortran 'do' statements within a compute construct must be predetermined private Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug translation/90061] ARM cortex-M hard fault on 64 bit sized object store to unaligned address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061 --- Comment #3 from Michael James --- HiSimple tests do not seem to be failing here either regardless of optimisation.They are all producing correct 32 bit load/stores that can be non-aligned. I shall try and extract the code from my larger proje

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/90048] Fortran OpenACC 'private' clause rejected for predetermined private loop iteration variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90048 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Fortran OpenACC 'private' |Fortran OpenACC 'private'

[Bug gcov-profile/90066] [GCOV] function with inline attribute leading to incorrect coverage for the "if" statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90066 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/87008] [8 Regression] gimple mem-to-mem assignment badly optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008 --- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse --- The original testcase also shows a small, unrelated regression: DSE3 used to be able to remove the initialization of sum to 0 when there were 2 statements (setting each element to 0). Now that we vectorize so

[Bug tree-optimization/81435] missing strlen optimization for strcat past the beginning of clear array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81435 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- I think it means that Andrew is a maintainer of the overall tree-ssa infrastructure. AFAIK, he has not done any work on the strlen optimizations in the file. Jakub is the author of the pass so he knows the m

[Bug gcov-profile/90066] New: [GCOV] function with inline attribute leading to incorrect coverage for the "if" statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90066 Bug ID: 90066 Summary: [GCOV] function with inline attribute leading to incorrect coverage for the "if" statement Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug translation/90061] ARM cortex-M hard fault on 64 bit sized object store to unaligned address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug d/90065] Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug d/90065] New: Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90065 Bug ID: 90065 Summary: Unaligned accesses on strict-alignment targets Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d

[Bug d/90064] InSituRegion lacks SPARC64 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90064 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug d/90064] New: InSituRegion lacks SPARC64 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90064 Bug ID: 90064 Summary: InSituRegion lacks SPARC64 support Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d Assi

[Bug middle-end/85563] [8/9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm regression with __builtin_unreachable and GCC 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563 --- Comment #16 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15) > I certainly do see that. Uh, indeed. I don't remember what I may have tested where we failed to set a range, or maybe I just got confused, better ignore my comme

[Bug d/90063] druntime DSO first assertion fails on Solaris/SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90063 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug d/90063] New: druntime DSO first assertion fails on Solaris/SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90063 Bug ID: 90063 Summary: druntime DSO first assertion fails on Solaris/SPARC Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/87008] [8 Regression] gimple mem-to-mem assignment badly optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Version|9.0 |8.3.1 Summary|[8/9 Regression

[Bug d/90062] SPARC stack alignment is wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90062 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug d/90062] New: SPARC stack alignment is wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90062 Bug ID: 90062 Summary: SPARC stack alignment is wrong Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d Assignee

[Bug translation/90061] ARM cortex-M hard fault on 64 bit sized object store to unaligned address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061 Michael James changed: What|Removed |Added Target||ARM Cortex M4 --- Comment #1 from Michae

[Bug translation/90061] New: ARM cortex-M hard fault on 64 bit sized object store to unaligned address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90061 Bug ID: 90061 Summary: ARM cortex-M hard fault on 64 bit sized object store to unaligned address Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/89291] internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_use_stmts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89291 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug d/90060] libphobos.druntime_shared/core/thread.d FAILs on Solaris/SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90060 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug d/90060] New: libphobos.druntime_shared/core/thread.d FAILs on Solaris/SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90060 Bug ID: 90060 Summary: libphobos.druntime_shared/core/thread.d FAILs on Solaris/SPARC Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/90058] False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug d/90059] Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations are wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059 --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 46149 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46149&action=edit Correct Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations

[Bug d/90059] New: Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations are wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059 Bug ID: 90059 Summary: Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations are wrong Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug d/90059] Solaris mcontext_t, ucontext_t declarations are wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90059 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug c++/90058] New: False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058 Bug ID: 90058 Summary: False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8 Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug middle-end/85563] [8/9 regression] -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm regression with __builtin_unreachable and GCC 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85563 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #12) > > Canonical example would be if (int_arg + 32U <= 64U) __builtin_unreachable > > (), > > We don't quite seem to put a range on int_arg with this. We have one > t

[Bug tree-optimization/87008] [8/9 Regression] gimple mem-to-mem assignment badly optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87008 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug middle-end/89970] [8/9 Regression] ICE in dispatch_function_versions, at config/i386/i386.c:32347

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89970 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug middle-end/89970] [8/9 Regression] ICE in dispatch_function_versions, at config/i386/i386.c:32347

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89970 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Fri Apr 12 12:54:00 2019 New Revision: 270314 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270314&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Handle multiple 'default' in target attribute (PR middle-end/89970). 2019

[Bug target/87532] bad results from vec_extract(unsigned char, foo) dependent upon function inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532 --- Comment #17 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kelvin Date: Fri Apr 12 12:51:58 2019 New Revision: 270313 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270313&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ChangeLog: 2019-04-12 Kelvin Nilsen PR targe

[Bug c++/88075] [feature-request] allow "concept" instead of "concept bool" with -fconcepts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88075 --- Comment #1 from Hannes Hauswedell --- I see that this has changed for snapshots of GCC9 now, thanks a lot! Is this something you can backport to to GCC7 and GCC8 that would really help downstream projects to reduce needless use of MACROs! Th

[Bug gcov-profile/90057] [GCOV] Wrong coverage for "if()" statement while it is embedded with an empty "for(;0;)" loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90057 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/89864] [9 regression] gcc fails to build/bootstrap with XCode 10.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864 --- Comment #67 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #66) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #62) > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #61) > > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #60) > > > > PR 81797 wa

[Bug regression/89733] [7/8/9 Regression] -Wuninitialized false positive with unclear message pointing to a class name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89733 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- On the reduced testcase the warning is completely correct. end_ is indeed uninitialized and then copied over in the Y constructor. As the ~F destructor is not defined, GCC can't optimize away those stores

[Bug gcov-profile/90053] [GCOV] A statement in while loop is wrongly marked as not executed when they are within the if(setjmp()) statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90053 --- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > I think you need to use setjmp/longjmp, not the __builtin variants which have > special semantics. Thanks for the suggestion. This is a reduced version of the tes

[Bug gcov-profile/90054] [GCOV] A call statement to the __builtin_snprintf function is wrongly marked as not executed when it is in a for loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90054 --- Comment #2 from Yibiao Yang --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Fixed on trunk with r263111. Not planning to backport. Got it. Thanks a lot.

[Bug gcov-profile/90057] New: [GCOV] Wrong coverage for "if()" statement while it is embedded with an empty "for(;0;)" loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90057 Bug ID: 90057 Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage for "if()" statement while it is embedded with an empty "for(;0;)" loop statement Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug middle-end/90056] New: 548.exchange2_r regressions on AMD Zen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90056 Bug ID: 90056 Summary: 548.exchange2_r regressions on AMD Zen Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug bootstrap/89864] [9 regression] gcc fails to build/bootstrap with XCode 10.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864 --- Comment #66 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #62) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #61) > > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #60) > > > PR 81797 was the relevant bug, which apparently is still prese

[Bug target/89929] __attribute__((target("avx512bw"))) doesn't work on non avx512bw systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška -

[Bug tree-optimization/90055] [7 Regression] Incorrect result with ffast-math + tree-vectorize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90055 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

  1   2   >