[Bug middle-end/88784] Middle end is missing some optimizations about unsigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784 --- Comment #3 from Qi Feng --- I have extended the transformations as following, the first five are the original ones: * unsigned Use UINT_MAX for demonstration, similar for UCHAR_MAX, USHRT_MAX, UINT_MAX, ULONG_MAX, ULLONG_MAX x > y

[Bug c++/85400] invalid Local Dynamic TLS relaxation for symbol defined in method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400 --- Comment #13 from Eric Botcazou --- (> Eric, can you please backport this patch to 8.4? OK, testing the backport...

[Bug fortran/80645] FAIL: gfortran.dg/elemental_subroutine_3.f90 -O1 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80645 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Target|m68k-*-*, ia64-*-*, |m68k-*-*, ia64-*-*,

[Bug debug/66668] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/stacked-qualified-types-3.c scan-assembler-times DIE \\([^\n]*\\) DW_TAG_(?:const|volatile|atomic|restrict)_type 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 --- Comment #13 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- Created attachment 46392 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46392&action=edit stacked-qualified-types-3.s generated for cris-elf at r271469

[Bug debug/66668] [6 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/stacked-qualified-types-3.c scan-assembler-times DIE \\([^\n]*\\) DW_TAG_(?:const|volatile|atomic|restrict)_type 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa64-hp-hpux11.11,|cris-elf |*-*-sol

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #39 from Conrad S --- > A better question might be: Are you going to fix your code? Yes [1], but that's besides the point here. I can certainly fix my code, but that leaves 99% of other software. Backports to gcc 8.x and 9.x would b

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #38 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 04:38:40AM +, conradsand.arma at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 > > --- Comment #37 from Conrad S --- > Thanks for the workaround. > Wil

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #37 from Conrad S --- Thanks for the workaround. Will the patches be backported to gcc 8.x and 9.x ?

[Bug fortran/89782] Can do an internal READ of a character array when it is a parameter, but not a scalar character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89782 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug fortran/89782] Can do an internal READ of a character array when it is a parameter, but not a scalar character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89782 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org A

[Bug other/90315] [10 regression] help text (or test for help text) problem after r270788

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug target/90568] stack protector should use cmp or sub, not xor, to allow macro-fusion on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568 --- Comment #1 from Peter Cordes --- https://godbolt.org/z/hHCVTc Forgot to mention, stack-protector also disables use of the red-zone for no apparent reason, so that's another missed optimization. (Perhaps rarely relevant; probably most functi

[Bug target/90568] New: stack protector should use cmp or sub, not xor, to allow macro-fusion on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90568 Bug ID: 90568 Summary: stack protector should use cmp or sub, not xor, to allow macro-fusion on x86 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: mis

[Bug middle-end/90553] Register allocation allocates post-incremented address-load of call to call-clobbered register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Version|9.0

[Bug middle-end/90553] Register allocation allocates post-incremented address-load of call to call-clobbered register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553 --- Comment #3 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- Author: hp Date: Wed May 22 00:43:23 2019 New Revision: 271499 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271499&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/90553 * gcc.dg/torture/pr90553.c: New test

[Bug middle-end/90553] Register allocation allocates post-incremented address-load of call to call-clobbered register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90553 --- Comment #2 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- Author: hp Date: Wed May 22 00:35:32 2019 New Revision: 271498 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271498&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/90553 * ira-lives.c (process_bb_node_lives

[Bug tree-optimization/90567] GCC bad optimization on recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90567 --- Comment #4 from msmaldi --- -O2 generate better results, but gcc 7 continue faster gcc-7 with -O3 real0m3,143s user0m3,119s sys 0m0,008s gcc-8 with -O2 real0m4,802s user0m4,793s sys 0m0,009s gcc 7 assembly generated

[Bug tree-optimization/68008] Pessimization of simple non-tail-recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68008 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 90567 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug tree-optimization/90567] GCC bad optimization on recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90567 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/90567] GCC bad optimization on recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90567 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|U

[Bug tree-optimization/90567] GCC bad optimization on recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90567 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug tree-optimization/68008] Pessimization of simple non-tail-recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68008 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msmaldi at hotmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug c/90567] New: GCC bad optimization on recursive functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90567 Bug ID: 90567 Summary: GCC bad optimization on recursive functions Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug libstdc++/77691] [7/8/9/10 regression] experimental/memory_resource/resource_adaptor.cc FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77691 --- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely --- I've been working on this again, and I think that the resource_adaptor type is the wrong place to fix the malloc alignment problem. The correct fix is to adjust the value of __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT

[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|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/69445] Fail to devirtualize call to base class function even though derived class type is 'final'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69445 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue May 21 22:26:42 2019 New Revision: 271491 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271491&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2019-05-21 Paolo Carlini PR c++/67184 P

[Bug tree-optimization/69445] Fail to devirtualize call to base class function even though derived class type is 'final'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69445 --- Comment #2 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue May 21 22:26:10 2019 New Revision: 271490 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271490&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2019-05-21 Paolo Carlini PR c++/67184 P

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184 --- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue May 21 22:26:10 2019 New Revision: 271490 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271490&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2019-05-21 Paolo Carlini PR c++/67184 P

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67184 --- Comment #9 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Tue May 21 22:26:42 2019 New Revision: 271491 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271491&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2019-05-21 Paolo Carlini PR c++/67184 P

[Bug fortran/90237] Bogus warning from -Wdo-subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237 --- Comment #8 from Tobias --- Looks like this has just been addressed in my original report https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563

[Bug fortran/90237] Bogus warning from -Wdo-subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237 --- Comment #7 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:43:29PM +, dominiq at lps dot ens.fr wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237 > > --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > > Why does this *warning* act

[Bug c/68193] _Generic -Woverflow false alarm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68193 Ladislav Michl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||la...@linux-mips.org --- Comment #6 fro

[Bug fortran/90563] [8/9/10 Regression] Out of bounds error when compiling with -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.4 Summary|[9/10 Regression]

[Bug fortran/90563] [9/10 Regression] Out of bounds error when compiling with -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/90566] New: Support demangling with underscore-prefixed string after mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90566 Bug ID: 90566 Summary: Support demangling with underscore-prefixed string after mangled name Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/90237] Bogus warning from -Wdo-subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Why does this *warning* actually cause an error and abort the compilation? > This is what I consider the bug, not the fact that it can't catch > all cases properly. A warning is not an error unless

[Bug fortran/90237] Bogus warning from -Wdo-subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237 --- Comment #5 from Tobias --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #4) > *** Bug 90563 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Why does this *warning* actually cause an error and abort the compilation? This is what I consider

[Bug fortran/90563] Out of bounds error when compiling with -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/90237] Bogus warning from -Wdo-subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90237 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@tobias-neumann.eu --- Commen

[Bug middle-end/34678] Optimization generates incorrect code with -frounding-math option (#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS not implemented)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34678 --- Comment #34 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #33) > (In reply to Stefan Vigerske from comment #32) > > Is there any hope this could actually be improved? > > Now, 10 years later, the FENV_ACCESS pragma seems to be

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 --- Comment #7 from Rich Townsend --- (In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > Dup. > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89864 *** > > Are you sure? The discussion in 89

[Bug testsuite/90565] New: [10 regression] test cases gcc.dg/uninit-18.c and uninit-pr90394-1-gimple.c broken as of r271460

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90565 Bug ID: 90565 Summary: [10 regression] test cases gcc.dg/uninit-18.c and uninit-pr90394-1-gimple.c broken as of r271460 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/90564] [10 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr80315-X tests updated in r271455 are broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/90564] New: [10 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr80315-X tests updated in r271455 are broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90564 Bug ID: 90564 Summary: [10 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pr80315-X tests updated in r271455 are broken Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 --- Comment #18 from Martin Liška --- @David: Can we close this now?

[Bug c++/85400] invalid Local Dynamic TLS relaxation for symbol defined in method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #12

[Bug c++/90562] thread_local variables in inline functions have different addresses across shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/90563] New: Out of bounds error when compiling with -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90563 Bug ID: 90563 Summary: Out of bounds error when compiling with -Wextra Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: f

[Bug c++/85400] invalid Local Dynamic TLS relaxation for symbol defined in method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85400 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tudorb at gmail dot com --- Comment #11

[Bug d/90560] ICE in visit, at d/dmd/dcast.c:1872

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90560 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- Reproducible in upstream dmd, bug raised here: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19890

[Bug d/90559] Out of memory because of negative length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90559 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- This was fixed in upstream dmd, I'll backport the patch for 9.2.

[Bug c++/90309] Spurious warning shift-negative-value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #3) > Seems we need to add a warning sentinel. ...but first it'd be nice to find out *why* we're shifting by -4 and how that can be.

[Bug c++/90562] thread_local variables in inline functions have different addresses across shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562 --- Comment #3 from Tudor Bosman --- The bug also exists in gcc 8.3.0.

[Bug c++/90562] thread_local variables in inline functions have different addresses across shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pi

[Bug c++/90562] thread_local variables in inline functions have different addresses across shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562 --- Comment #1 from Tudor Bosman --- Note that the behavior is correct (the thread local variable has the same address) with -O0, but incorrect with -O1 or above.

[Bug c++/90562] New: thread_local variables in inline functions have different addresses across shared libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90562 Bug ID: 90562 Summary: thread_local variables in inline functions have different addresses across shared libraries Product: gcc Version: 7.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/79885] --with-build-sysroot= does not get honored throughout the build (fix-includes, CPP, CXXCPP, configure-stage2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 --- Comment #6 from Rich Townsend --- (In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > Dup. > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89864 *** > > Are you sure? The discussion in 89

[Bug target/90547] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gen_lowpart_general, at rtlhooks.c:63

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90547 --- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Tue May 21 17:57:11 2019 New Revision: 271479 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271479&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/90547 * config/i386/i386.md (anddi_1 to

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #0) > I'm running into a bug building on OSX Mojave, which seems to be tied into > the problems with _Atomic in Apple's system headers. The error itself is: > /Users/tow

[Bug middle-end/90114] Predetermined private levels for variables declared in OpenACC accelerator routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90114 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwing

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90067 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Thomas Schwing

[Bug fortran/90561] [9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 --- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #3) > (In reply to Rich Townsend from comment #2) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > > Dup. > > > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug fortran/90561] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2747

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90561 Bug ID: 90561 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2747 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/88099] ICE in maybe_legitimize_operand, at optabs.c:7170

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88099 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/50974] ICE on invalid on function used as variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50974 --- Comment #6 from G. Steinmetz --- *** Bug 88099 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug d/90560] New: ICE in visit, at d/dmd/dcast.c:1872

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90560 Bug ID: 90560 Summary: ICE in visit, at d/dmd/dcast.c:1872 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d As

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 --- Comment #2 from Rich Townsend --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Dup. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89864 *** Are you sure? The discussion in 89864 indicates that the patch to fix this bug should be i

[Bug d/90559] New: Out of memory because of negative length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90559 Bug ID: 90559 Summary: Out of memory because of negative length Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89864 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||townsend at astro dot wisc.edu --- Comme

[Bug bootstrap/90558] '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/90558] New: '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90558 Bug ID: 90558 Summary: '_Atomic does not name a type' error resurfaces when building with old headers on OSX Mojave Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/67958] The tests changed by r223498 now FAILs on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67958 --- Comment #6 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Tue May 21 16:33:48 2019 New Revision: 271475 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271475&root=gcc&view=rev Log: darwin, testsuite - fix PR 67958 These tests require specific scan-asms in

[Bug target/63891] [7/8/9/10 regression] Failure of darwin-weakimport-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891 --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Tue May 21 16:24:25 2019 New Revision: 271474 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271474&root=gcc&view=rev Log: darwin, testsuite - fix PR 63891. This is a testcase failing because one p

[Bug target/63545] ICE when building GCC for ia64-hp-hpux11.23 in hash_table::find_slot_with_hash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63545 --- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- I can't help much as I don't have a ia64 system. I don't think the issue in this PR relates directly to hpux.  Rather, the bootstrap compiler has miscompiled the stage1 compiler. The 4.9 branch

[Bug bootstrap/87338] [8/9 Regression] gcc 8.2 fails to bootstrap on ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/87338] gcc 8.2 fails to bootstrap on ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Tue May 21 15:42:00 2019 New Revision: 271472 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271472&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR bootstrap/87338 * dwarf2out.c (dwarf2out_inline_entry):

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038 --- Comment #13 from Janne Blomqvist --- Author: jb Date: Tue May 21 15:24:30 2019 New Revision: 271470 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271470&root=gcc&view=rev Log: libfortran/90038: Document new wait=.false. implementation 2019-05-21 Ja

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90038 --- Comment #12 from Janne Blomqvist --- Author: jb Date: Tue May 21 15:17:44 2019 New Revision: 271468 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271468&root=gcc&view=rev Log: libfortran/90038: Document new wait=.false. implementation 2019-05-21 Ja

[Bug libstdc++/90557] Incorrect std::filesystem::path::operator=(std::filesystem::path const&) in gcc 9.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90557 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/68358] Some tests in gfortran.dg fail when compiled with '-g -flto' and Xcode 7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #18 from Iain Sandoe ---

[Bug fortran/90539] [10 Regression] 481.wrf slowdown by 25% on Intel Kaby with -Ofast -march=native starting with r271377

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90539 nsz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nsz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug libstdc++/90557] New: Incorrect std::filesystem::path::operator=(std::filesystem::path const&) in gcc 9.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90557 Bug ID: 90557 Summary: Incorrect std::filesystem::path::operator=(std::filesystem::path const&) in gcc 9.1.0 Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCON

[Bug libstdc++/90252] PSTL test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90252 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Tue May 21 13:50:41 2019 New Revision: 271466 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271466&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR libstdc++/90252 fix effective-target check for TBB PR libstdc

[Bug other/84889] Ideas on revamping how we format diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84889 --- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #14) > > David: Can the bug be marked as resolved? > > Much of this is implemented for gcc 9. > > I want to keep this o

[Bug c/53063] encode group options in the .opt files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/40989] -Werror= and #pragma diagnostics do not work with group flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40989 Bug 40989 depends on bug 53063, which changed state. Bug 53063 Summary: encode group options in the .opt files https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53063 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/90545] [10 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splats-floatdouble.c fails starting with r271022

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/48562] [C++0x] warn about uses of initializer_list that will lead to dangling pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48562 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/90545] [10 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splats-floatdouble.c fails starting with r271022

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90545 --- Comment #1 from Alan Modra --- Author: amodra Date: Tue May 21 13:36:04 2019 New Revision: 271464 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=271464&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR90545, gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-splats-floatdouble.c fails I figure a

[Bug middle-end/90549] missing -Wreturn-local-addr maybe returning an address of a local array plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90549 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #2) > Agreed. Please go ahead abd create one. > > I'm working on a combined patch for this and PR 71924. OK, I created bug 90556

[Bug other/90556] New: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wreturn-local-addr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556 Bug ID: 90556 Summary: [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wreturn-local-addr Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic, meta-bug Severity: normal

[Bug c++/88335] Implement P1073R3, C++20 immediate functions (consteval).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Not working on this anymore.

[Bug ipa/79966] [9/10 Regression] run time more than twice slower when using -fipa-cp-clone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The run time on the 9 branch and trunk with/without -fipa-cp-clone is now as slow as for the 8 branch with -fipa-cp-clone: % gfc9 pr79966.f90 -O2 -fpeel-loops -finline-functions % time ./a.out Using

[Bug fortran/68358] Some tests in gfortran.dg fail when compiled with '-g -flto' and Xcode 7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68358 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #17 from Domi

[Bug c++/90309] Spurious warning shift-negative-value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/88335] Implement P1073R3, C++20 immediate functions (consteval).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88335 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #46388|0 |1 is obsolete|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90510 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

  1   2   >