[Bug c++/90515] New: g++ ignores [[deprecated("text")]] in some template specialisations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90515 Bug ID: 90515 Summary: g++ ignores [[deprecated("text")]] in some template specialisations Product: gcc Version: 9.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug go/90482] [10 regression] Many 32-bit Solaris/SPARC tests FAIL with SIGBUS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90482 --- Comment #1 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ian Date: Fri May 17 05:49:22 2019 New Revision: 271310 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271310&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR go/90482 compiler: make value method of direct inter

[Bug middle-end/90514] New: Issue about enum type in gcc tree

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90514 Bug ID: 90514 Summary: Issue about enum type in gcc tree Product: gcc Version: tree-ssa Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug target/90513] Pwerplcelfv2 :R2 is not updated to the TOC base .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from

[Bug target/90512] New: Pwerplcelfv2 :R2 is not updated to the TOC base .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90512 Bug ID: 90512 Summary: Pwerplcelfv2 :R2 is not updated to the TOC base . Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/90513] New: Pwerplcelfv2 :R2 is not updated to the TOC base .

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90513 Bug ID: 90513 Summary: Pwerplcelfv2 :R2 is not updated to the TOC base . Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug lto/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 Guobing changed: What|Removed |Added CC||neochen.life at aliyun dot com --- Comment #9

[Bug lto/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 Guobing changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guobing.chen at intel dot com --- Comment #8 f

[Bug tree-optimization/90270] [8/9/10 Regression] Do not select best induction variable optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90270 --- Comment #13 from jojo --- Hi, guys, Any solution for this issue ? My be the following patch is choice :) ? Are there issue with applied this patch ? --- tree-ssa-loop-ivopts-orig.c 2019-05-17 09:32:58.05200 +0800 +++ tree-ssa-loop-iv

[Bug c/90511] New: bogus attributes silently accepted before struct or union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90511 Bug ID: 90511 Summary: bogus attributes silently accepted before struct or union Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug libstdc++/90299] std::filesystem::absolute("") and std::filesystem::absolute("", ec) behave differently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu May 16 23:09:51 2019 New Revision: 271302 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271302&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/90299 make filesystem::absolute overloads consistent In thi

[Bug libstdc++/90509] failing typing std::transform with policies on std::insert_iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90509 --- Comment #4 from Maurizio Drocco --- Sorry I was forgetting the requirement, thank you for remarking it.

[Bug libstdc++/90299] std::filesystem::absolute("") and std::filesystem::absolute("", ec) behave differently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/90299] std::filesystem::absolute("") and std::filesystem::absolute("", ec) behave differently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu May 16 23:00:26 2019 New Revision: 271301 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271301&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/90299 make filesystem::absolute overloads consistent In thi

[Bug libstdc++/90509] failing typing std::transform with policies on std::insert_iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90509 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/90509] failing typing std::transform with policies on std::insert_iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90509 Maurizio Drocco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug libstdc++/90509] failing typing std::transform with policies on std::insert_iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90509 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/90509] New: failing typing std::transform with policies on std::insert_iterator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90509 Bug ID: 90509 Summary: failing typing std::transform with policies on std::insert_iterator Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/90472] “extern int i;” declaration inside function isn't allowed to shadow “static int i;” at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90472 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- This is not a bug. If 'i' is not redeclared in an intermediate scope, so the visible declaration is one at file scope, the rule that "if the prior declaration specifies internal or externa

[Bug tree-optimization/90510] New: [10 Regression] Unnecessary permutation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510 Bug ID: 90510 Summary: [10 Regression] Unnecessary permutation Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimi

[Bug tree-optimization/90510] [10 Regression] Unnecessary permutation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90484] [9/10 Regression] ICE in equal_mem_array_ref_p at gcc/tree-ssa-scopedtables.c:550 since r270433 on i586

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90484 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu May 16 21:45:34 2019 New Revision: 271299 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271299&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/90484 * tree-ssa-scopedtables.c (equal_mem_array_re

[Bug bootstrap/90497] [10 Regression] Broken bootstrap on i686-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looks good on i686-linux, results in FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr90497-2.c (test for excess errors) Excess errors: /home/jakub/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr90497-2.c:11:10: warning: implicit declaratio

[Bug middle-end/89765] [9/10 Regression] Multiple problems with vec-insert implementation on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765 --- Comment #14 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kelvin Date: Thu May 16 21:10:32 2019 New Revision: 271297 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271297&root=gcc&view=rev Log: gcc/ChangeLog: 2019-05-16 Kelvin Nilsen Backport

[Bug target/90458] mingw64: ICE in i386_pe_seh_unwind_emit, at config/i386/winnt.c:1258 with -fstack-clash-protection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So this is an interaction between stack-clash protection and SEH. I'm not *at all* familiar with SEH, though obviously I know a bit about stack clash. In general on x86 the compiler handles stack allocati

[Bug c++/90508] New: GCC does not produce full template backtraces when instantiating but not calling virtual functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90508 Bug ID: 90508 Summary: GCC does not produce full template backtraces when instantiating but not calling virtual functions Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/90038] execute_command_line should not use fork()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038 Janne Blomqvist changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-

[Bug tree-optimization/88440] size optimization of memcpy-like code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 16 May 2019, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440 > > --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/90507] [10 regression] ICE in gdc.test/runnable/mars1.d test case after r271209

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90507 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > So the first question would be why D passes the return value as > DECL_BY_REFERENCE if it doesn't have TREE_ADDRESSABLE type. Looking at the places where DECL_BY_

[Bug c++/90505] [9/10 Regression] g++ rejects a valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Seems to be caused by this change: @@ -16327,15 +16388,6 @@ cp_parser_template_name (cp_parser* parser, } } - /* If DECL is dependent, and refers to a function, then just return - its name; we

[Bug c++/67184] Missed optimization with C++11 final specifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug bootstrap/90497] [10 Regression] Broken bootstrap on i686-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90497 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #46362|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug driver/90392] [9/10 Regression] Assertion failure in ldlang.c:6868 when compiling with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90392 --- Comment #5 from ohaiziejohwahkeezuoz at xff dot cz --- Since the assertion is in `ld`, I've also reported the issue with some new details here https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24567

[Bug tree-optimization/88440] size optimization of memcpy-like code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88440 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > Created attachment 45313 [details] > patch > > This enables distribution of patterns at -O[2s]+ and optimizes the testcase > at -Os by adjusting the guards in lo

[Bug target/58790] [missed optimization] reduction of masks of builtin vectors not transformed to ptest or movemask instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58790 Matthias Kretz changed: What|Removed |Added Version|4.9.0 |10.0 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Kretz

[Bug c++/90462] Internal compiler error with deprecated-copy and json diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90462 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- Thanks. It's attempting to dereference a NULL file when erroneously attempting to serialize UNKNOWN_LOCATION for the finish_loc of a location range. Notice how: deprecated-copy-crash.cc:43:5: warning: imp

[Bug lto/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/90507] New: [10 regression] ICE in gdc.test/runnable/mars1.d test case after r271209

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90507 Bug ID: 90507 Summary: [10 regression] ICE in gdc.test/runnable/mars1.d test case after r271209 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/90507] [10 regression] ICE in gdc.test/runnable/mars1.d test case after r271209

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90507 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu

[Bug tree-optimization/90316] [8/9 Regression] large compile time increase in opt / alias stmt walking for Go example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316 --- Comment #38 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Than McIntosh from comment #37) > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #36) > > > Thanks for the experiment. I guess I will limit backporting things > > to the GCC 9 branch then. Am I

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7) > So we are already considering _some_ LHS of return-slot-opt calls as having > their address taken: > > if (visit_addr > && gimple_call_return_

[Bug fortran/90506] New: rejects-valid: function with polymorphic return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90506 Bug ID: 90506 Summary: rejects-valid: function with polymorphic return type Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug lto/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Fixed on trunk, not planning to backport that.

[Bug libstdc++/90046] [9 Regression] fails to build a epiphany-elf cross toolchain with C++ enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90046 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sebastian.huber@embedded-br

[Bug lto/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu May 16 13:08:48 2019 New Revision: 271289 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271289&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Do not allow target_clones with alias attr (PR lto/90500). 2019-05-16 Ma

[Bug target/88789] epiphany: memory_resource.cc:235:62: error: static assertion failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from Jonathan

[Bug c++/90484] [9/10 Regression] ICE in equal_mem_array_ref_p at gcc/tree-ssa-scopedtables.c:550 since r270433 on i586

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90484 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug target/88789] epiphany: memory_resource.cc:235:62: error: static assertion failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88789 Sebastian Huber changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/90394] [10 Regression] ICE in is_value_included_in, at tree-ssa-uninit.c:1055

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/90394] [10 Regression] ICE in is_value_included_in, at tree-ssa-uninit.c:1055

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90394 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov --- Author: amonakov Date: Thu May 16 12:36:33 2019 New Revision: 271287 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271287&root=gcc&view=rev Log: tree-ssa-uninit: avoid ICE with BIT_AND_EXPR (PR 90394) 2019-05-16

[Bug c++/90505] [9/10 Regression] g++ rejects a valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/90505] [9/10 Regression] gcc 9.1 rejects valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90505] [9/10 Regression] gcc 9.1 rejects valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Priority|P3

[Bug c++/90484] [9/10 Regression] ICE in equal_mem_array_ref_p at gcc/tree-ssa-scopedtables.c:550 since r270433 on i586

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90484 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > I bet the above mentioned commit just tweaked things so that we now compare > in a hash table something we didn't compare before. > equal_mem_array_ref_p is call

[Bug middle-end/90478] [10 Regression] ICE in emit_case_dispatch_table at gcc/stmt.c:796

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90478 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug middle-end/90478] [10 Regression] ICE in emit_case_dispatch_table at gcc/stmt.c:796

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90478 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to nsz from comment #8) > i see > > FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr90478-2.c (internal compiler error) > > on > > aarch64-none-elf, aarch64_be-none-elf, arm-none-eabi > > targets. Sorry for that. The t

[Bug middle-end/90478] [10 Regression] ICE in emit_case_dispatch_table at gcc/stmt.c:796

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90478 nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug fortran/90329] Incompatibility between gfortran and C lapack calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #35 from Jakub Jelinek --- One more thing, if I add to start of the DTRTRI function INTERFACE SUBROUTINE DTRTI2( UPLO, DIAG, N, A, LDA, INFO ) CHARACTER DIAG, UPLO INTEGERINFO, LDA, N

[Bug c++/90505] New: gcc 9.1 rejects valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90505 Bug ID: 90505 Summary: gcc 9.1 rejects valid code Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee

[Bug driver/90496] ICE in RTL pass pro_and_epilogue when all of `-flto -fsanitize=address -fstack-usage` are used on trivial source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90496 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #5) > > it probably doesn't make sense to print stack usage for compiler-generated > > functions? Or at least UNKNOWN_LOCATION should be handled better. > > The latter

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > So the first question would be why D passes the return value as > DECL_BY_REFERENCE if it doesn't have TREE_ADDRESSABLE type. I guessed it's optimization (using

[Bug driver/90496] ICE in RTL pass pro_and_epilogue when all of `-flto -fsanitize=address -fstack-usage` are used on trivial source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90496 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- > it probably doesn't make sense to print stack usage for compiler-generated > functions? Or at least UNKNOWN_LOCATION should be handled better. The latter, the stack usage must be printed for every functio

[Bug fortran/90329] Incompatibility between gfortran and C lapack calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek --- Even the subroutine foo (a, b, c, d, e, f) integer :: c, e, f character(len=1) :: a, b double precision :: d (e, *) call bar (a, b, c, d, e, f) end subroutine foo is tail call optimized by both older

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- So the first question would be why D passes the return value as DECL_BY_REFERENCE if it doesn't have TREE_ADDRESSABLE type.

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug tree-optimization/90488] OpenACC Profiling Interface: callbacks from the OpenACC implementation into user code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90488 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge --- I filed "OpenACC Profiling Interface: callbacks branching out of an OpenACC construct/executable directive", hoping to get some aspects of this clarified

[Bug debug/90471] ICE Segmentation fault when compiling with debug info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90471 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Known to work|7.3.0

[Bug fortran/90504] New: Improved NORM2 algorithm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90504 Bug ID: 90504 Summary: Improved NORM2 algorithm Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug tree-optimization/90491] simple operation with unsigned long integer and conversion to float not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90491 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to g.peterhoff from comment #2) > compile with gcc-9 and -O3 -march=native (avx/avx2 available @ ryzen 2 !) > -mtune=intel -mno-vzeroupper You need -mavx512dq to vectorize this.

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3) > > Do you need a minimized test case? > > Hmm, I get > > gcc> make check-d RUNTESTFLAGS="gdc-test.exp=mars1.d" > ..

[Bug tree-optimization/90437] Overflow detection too late for VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90437 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to JunMa from comment #2) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > VRP obviously only sees a + b in [0, 20] and [0, 20] < [0, 10] as unknown. > > we do have pattern x+y < y in match.pd,

[Bug tree-optimization/90437] Overflow detection too late for VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90437 JunMa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||JunMa at linux dot alibaba.com --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug fortran/90329] Incompatibility between gfortran and C lapack calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu May 16 09:37:43 2019 New Revision: 271285 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271285&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR fortran/90329 * tree-core.h (struct tree_decl_common):

Re: mingw-w64 gcc 9.1.0 - cc1plus: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

On 16/05/19 06:16 +, hien via gcc-bugs wrote: Hi folks, I've encounterd a bug with GCC 9.1.0 on the mingw-w64 target. g++ is built as a cross-compiler running on 64-bit GNU/Linux (glibc 2.29, linux 5.1.2)... $ x86_64-w64-mingw32-g++ -v .//configure --prefix=/usr --target=x86_64-w64-ming

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3) > Do you need a minimized test case? Hmm, I get gcc> make check-d RUNTESTFLAGS="gdc-test.exp=mars1.d" ... === gdc tests === Schedule of variations

[Bug debug/86964] [7/8 Regression] Too many debug symbols included, especially for extern globals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964 --- Comment #17 from Thomas De Schampheleire --- Thanks, see: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-05/msg00922.html

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/90478] [10 Regression] ICE in emit_case_dispatch_table at gcc/stmt.c:796

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90478 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Trying to investigate.

[Bug testsuite/90502] [10 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-6.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90502 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/90502] [10 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-6.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90502 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu May 16 09:12:53 2019 New Revision: 271283 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271283&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-05-16 Richard Biener PR testsuite/90502 * gcc.

[Bug middle-end/90501] [10 regression] ICE: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90501 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug driver/90496] ICE in RTL pass pro_and_epilogue when all of `-flto -fsanitize=address -fstack-usage` are used on trivial source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90496 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Confirmed with GCC 8: > > Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x01ce24bb in unix_lbasename (name=0x0) > at /space/rguenther/src/sv

[Bug gcov-profile/90380] gcov issue: gets stuck (infinite loop?) while analyzing coverage on Fortran project

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380 --- Comment #42 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Victor from comment #41) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #40) > > Fixed on all active branches. > > I can confirm that coverage is working for us compiling gcc from > gcc-9-branch from

[Bug target/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/90502] [10 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-6.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90502 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/90503] [10 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90503 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Component|testsuite

[Bug testsuite/90503] [10 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90503 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/90500] ICE error in copy_forbiden

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90500 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/90498] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE with select type/associate and derived type argument containing class(*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90498 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Version|unknown

[Bug driver/90496] ICE in RTL pass pro_and_epilogue when all of `-flto -fsanitize=address -fstack-usage` are used on trivial source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90496 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug driver/90496] ICE in RTL pass pro_and_epilogue when all of `-flto -fsanitize=address -fstack-usage` are used on trivial source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90496 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Confirmed with GCC 8: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0x01ce24bb in unix_lbasename (name=0x0) at /space/rguenther/src/svn/gcc-8-branch/libiberty/lbasename.c:53 53 for (bas

[Bug gcov-profile/90380] gcov issue: gets stuck (infinite loop?) while analyzing coverage on Fortran project

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90380 --- Comment #41 from Victor --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #40) > Fixed on all active branches. I can confirm that coverage is working for us compiling gcc from gcc-9-branch from https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc mirror repository.

[Bug c++/90494] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE using a released ssaname

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90494 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Priority|P3

[Bug target/90492] simple array-copy not use available simd-registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90492 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug tree-optimization/90491] simple operation with unsigned long integer and conversion to float not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90491 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug target/90503] [10 regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90503 --- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > Between 20190514 (r271183) and 20190515 (r271254), the > gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c > testcase regressed on several x86 targets: > > +FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vector-6.c scan-tree-dump-time

  1   2   >