[Bug target/91767] [10 regression] After r274953, clang-compiled xgcc segfaults during RTL pass: stv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Fri Sep 20 06:42:39 2019 New Revision: 275989 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275989&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-20 Richard Biener PR target/91767 * config/

[Bug target/91767] [10 regression] After r274953, clang-compiled xgcc segfaults during RTL pass: stv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/91767] [10 regression] After r274953, clang-compiled xgcc segfaults during RTL pass: stv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/91767] [10 regression] After r274953, clang-compiled xgcc segfaults during RTL pass: stv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Dimitry Andric from comment #5) > Hmm, it appears that this diff "fixes" it: > > diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c > b/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c > index 9505b4a1330..091a59f3cb9

[Bug bootstrap/91825] Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Somewhat reduced: typedef struct rtx_def *rtx; enum machine_mode { E_VOIDmode, E_BLKmode, E_CCmode, E_CCFPmode, E_CCFPEmode, E_CC_SWPmode, E_CC_NZCmode, E_CC_NZmode, E_CC_Zmode, E_CC_Cmod

[Bug fortran/91785] ICE in check_assumed_size_reference, at fortran/resolve.c:1601

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91785 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug tree-optimization/88713] Vectorized code slow vs. flang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713 --- Comment #56 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #55) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #45) > > Created attachment 45510 [details] > > An updated patch > > HJ, do you plan on committing these? We are collecting perfor

[Bug fortran/91802] ICE in mio_name_expr_t, at fortran/module.c:2141

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91802 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug middle-end/91631] buffer overflow into an array member of a declared object not detected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91631 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91631] buffer overflow into an array member of a declared object not detected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91631 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Thu Sep 19 22:15:34 2019 New Revision: 275981 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275981&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/91631 - buffer overflow into an array member of a declared o

[Bug c/67224] UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/91829] New: compatibility.cc: syntax error lea (%pc, _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE@GOTPC), a4 ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91829 Bug ID: 91829 Summary: compatibility.cc: syntax error lea (%pc, _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE@GOTPC), a4 ignored Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug fortran/91801] ICE in gfc_simplify_reshape, at fortran/simplify.c:6733

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91801 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/88713] Vectorized code slow vs. flang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88713 --- Comment #55 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #45) > Created attachment 45510 [details] > An updated patch HJ, do you plan on committing these?

[Bug bootstrap/91825] Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Created attachment 46902 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46902&action=edit expmed.ii.xz Compiling this with "-Wmaybe-uninitialized -O2" gave the warning (on x86_64 too).

[Bug bootstrap/91825] Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 --- Comment #4 from Steve Ellcey --- The original bootstrap failure is on aarch64.

[Bug bootstrap/91825] Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- Note that I reverted the patch, but still need a reproducer.

[Bug fortran/91828] gcc/fortran/check.c requires mpfr_set_z_2exp from MPFR 3.0.0, unavailable in mpfr-2.4.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828 --- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- My view is as stated in and : * Update the minimum to at least 3.0, pos

[Bug bootstrap/91825] Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|build, diagnostic | Blocks|24639

[Bug fortran/91828] gcc/fortran/check.c requires mpfr_set_z_2exp from MPFR 3.0.0, unavailable in mpfr-2.4.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 --- Comment #1 from kargl a

[Bug c/67224] UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/67224] UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224 --- Comment #31 from Joseph S. Myers --- Author: jsm28 Date: Thu Sep 19 19:56:11 2019 New Revision: 275979 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275979&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Support extended characters in C/C++ identifiers (PR c/67224) libcpp/C

[Bug target/91823] [10 regression] r275959 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-32.c with ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91823 --- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- The test case works with that change. I will run a comparison full test too to check if everything else is still OK.

[Bug fortran/91828] New: gcc/fortran/check.c requires mpfr_set_z_2exp from MPFR 3.0.0, unavailable in mpfr-2.4.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91828 Bug ID: 91828 Summary: gcc/fortran/check.c requires mpfr_set_z_2exp from MPFR 3.0.0, unavailable in mpfr-2.4.2 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug c/91815] questionable error on type definition at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91815 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Either gcc.dg or gcc.c-torture/compile would be fine for this test.

[Bug rtl-optimization/91823] [10 regression] r275959 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-32.c with ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91823 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot

[Bug target/91767] [10 regression] After r274953, clang-compiled xgcc segfaults during RTL pass: stv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 --- Comment #5 from Dimitry Andric --- Hmm, it appears that this diff "fixes" it: diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c b/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c index 9505b4a1330..091a59f3cb9 100644 --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c +++ b/gc

[Bug c/91815] questionable error on type definition at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91815 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/91819] [10 Regression] ICE when iterating over enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c/91815] questionable error on type definition at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91815 --- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou --- The fixlet slightly breaks Objective-C: +FAIL: objc.dg/headers.m -fgnu-runtime (test for excess errors) +FAIL: objc.dg/id-1.m -fgnu-runtime (test for errors, line 4) +FAIL: objc.dg/id-1.m -fgnu-runtime (te

[Bug rtl-optimization/91823] [10 regression] r275959 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-32.c with ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91823 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirme

[Bug bootstrap/91825] Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-reduction Status|UNCON

[Bug tree-optimization/91822] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr88031.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91822 --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Thanks for fixing this, think it was entirely my patch to blame. (I'd tested it on SVE only, oops.) Agree the patch in #c2 looks like the way to go.

[Bug target/91702] [9/10 Regression] ICE with mips16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91702 --- Comment #2 from Hauke Mehrtens --- I backported https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=273174 on top of GCC 9.2.0 and I do not see this problem any more, OpenWrt compiles now file with these settings. Please backport this chan

[Bug libstdc++/91827] New: const std::experimental::optional is not std::is_nothrow_move_constructible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91827 Bug ID: 91827 Summary: const std::experimental::optional is not std::is_nothrow_move_constructible Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug c++/91826] New: Unexpected behavior when class defined with namespace alias

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91826 Bug ID: 91826 Summary: Unexpected behavior when class defined with namespace alias Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug bootstrap/91825] New: Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91825 Bug ID: 91825 Summary: Top-of-tree GCC does not bootstrap (uninitialized warning) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug fortran/91727] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE in conformable_arrays, at fortran/resolve.c:7490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91727 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/91727] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE in conformable_arrays, at fortran/resolve.c:7490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91727 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Sep 19 17:54:53 2019 New Revision: 275973 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275973&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-19 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91727

[Bug c/91815] questionable error on type definition at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91815 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/91822] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr88031.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91822 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/91819] [10 Regression] ICE when iterating over enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Candidate fix: diff --git gcc/cp/call.c gcc/cp/call.c index b780b0af58e..b806faacf03 100644 --- gcc/cp/call.c +++ gcc/cp/call.c @@ -5878,7 +5885,10 @@ build_new_op_1 (const op_location_t &loc, enum tree_code

[Bug middle-end/91824] New: unnecessary sign-extension after _mm_movemask_epi8 or __builtin_popcount

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91824 Bug ID: 91824 Summary: unnecessary sign-extension after _mm_movemask_epi8 or __builtin_popcount Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/91635] wrong code at -O2 with __builtin_add_overflow() and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91635 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/91804] [10 regression] r265398 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/vec-rlmi-rlnm.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91804 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91819] [10 Regression] ICE when iterating over enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- The problem is that for POSTINCREMENT_EXPR build_new_op_1 is called with null arg2, so arg2_type is also null, but then we make arg2 nonnull 5887 if (code == POSTINCREMENT_EXPR || code == POSTDECREMENT_EXP

[Bug testsuite/91799] [10 regression] r273245 breaks test case gcc.target/powerpc/pr88233.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91799 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/91532] [SVE] Redundant predicated store in gcc.target/aarch64/fmla_2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91532 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/91823] New: [10 regression] r275959 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-32.c with ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91823 Bug ID: 91823 Summary: [10 regression] r275959 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/altivec-32.c with ICE Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/91822] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr88031.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91822 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/91822] New: [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr88031.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91822 Bug ID: 91822 Summary: [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/pr88031.c (internal compiler error) Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/91821] [10 regression] r275928 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/sad-vectorize-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91821 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Sep 19 17:05:51 2019 New Revision: 275971 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275971&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-19 Richard Biener PR target/91814 * config/

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/91820] missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- This is probably a duplicate of other bugs for cases that are not required in the standard to be constant expressions but are permitted as additional implementation-defined kinds of constan

[Bug c/91815] questionable error on type definition at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91815 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Yes, that looks like a plausible fix (given testcase added to the testsuite and regression testing).

[Bug testsuite/91821] New: [10 regression] r275928 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/sad-vectorize-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91821 Bug ID: 91821 Summary: [10 regression] r275928 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/sad-vectorize-2.c Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/91820] missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- -pedantic-errors

[Bug c++/91819] [10 Regression] ICE when iterating over enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection |ice-on-valid-code CC|

[Bug c/91820] missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820 --- Comment #3 from tangyixuan --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > does adding -pedantic help? Thanks for your reply. When I add -padantic, gcc-trunk reports warning : 2:45: warning：initialization of ‘volatile int * volatile* const

[Bug debug/91817] compile with -O3 is more-than-expectedly slower than -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91817 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug target/91818] SSE optimization flaw with float vs. double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91818 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91819] [10 Regression] ICE when iterating over enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection Status|UNCO

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > ISTR discussing this but holding back a fix at the time we weren't sure if > > we'd preserve the non-subreg sets.

[Bug tree-optimization/91812] [7/8/9 Regression] GCC ignores volatile modifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |tree-optimization Known to work|

[Bug c/91820] missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- My bet is that a is being treated as a "NULL Pointer cosntant"

[Bug c/91812] GCC ignores volatile modifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Sep 19 12:49:45 2019 New Revision: 275960 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275960&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-19 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/91812

[Bug c/91820] missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- does adding -pedantic help?

[Bug c/91820] New: missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91820 Bug ID: 91820 Summary: missing error diagnosis of '&' in initialization Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/91812] GCC ignores volatile modifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91812 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- OK, so while the comment says to exclude volatile the code never checked for that: /* We cannot replace a load that may throw or is volatile. */ && !stmt_can_throw_internal (cfun, u

[Bug c++/91819] New: ICE when iterating over enum values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91819 Bug ID: 91819 Summary: ICE when iterating over enum values Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/86811] Vax port needs updating for CVE-2017-5753

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86811 coypu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coypu at sdf dot org --- Comment #1 from coypu

[Bug target/85401] segfault building code for VAX

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85401 --- Comment #7 from coypu --- I sent a patch to gcc-patches. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg00896.html

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > ISTR discussing this but holding back a fix at the time we weren't sure if > we'd preserve the non-subreg sets. So sth like > > Index: gcc/config/i386/i386-feat

[Bug testsuite/81690] libgomp.c/{target-32,thread-limit-2}.c fail for nvptx: missing usleep

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81690 --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus --- One other thing I was thinking of would be the do_sleep function with: #pragma omp declare target device_type(host) (using usleep) AND (using busy wait or similar) #pragma omp declare target device_t

[Bug c++/91818] New: SSE optimization flaw with float vs. double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91818 Bug ID: 91818 Summary: SSE optimization flaw with float vs. double Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/91817] compile with -O3 is more-than-expectedly slower than -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91817 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/91817] New: compile with -O3 is more-than-expectedly slower than -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91817 Bug ID: 91817 Summary: compile with -O3 is more-than-expectedly slower than -O2 Product: gcc Version: 4.6.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug testsuite/81690] libgomp.c/{target-32,thread-limit-2}.c fail for nvptx: missing usleep

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81690 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/91738] [10 regression] gcc.target/arm/pr53447-5.c fails since r274823

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91738 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/91816] Arm generates out of range conditional branches in Thumb2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816 --- Comment #1 from Tamar Christina --- This needs to be Backported to all supported GCC versions.

[Bug target/91816] New: Arm generates out of range conditional branches in Thumb2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91816 Bug ID: 91816 Summary: Arm generates out of range conditional branches in Thumb2 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: assemble-failure, wron

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- ISTR discussing this but holding back a fix at the time we weren't sure if we'd preserve the non-subreg sets. So sth like Index: gcc/config/i386/i386-features.c ===

[Bug c/91815] New: questionable error on type definition at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91815 Bug ID: 91815 Summary: questionable error on type definition at file scope Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: minor

[Bug fortran/48419] [ABI cleanup] Reduce gfortran stack usage for procedures doing IO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48419 --- Comment #9 from Janne Blomqvist --- Like Jerry said, we've recently had an ABI break (two, actually!), and I think we should try hard to avoid yet another one. I think it should be possible to create some new st_parameter_dt_2 or such, as we

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- (insn 22 7 8 2 (set (subreg:V2DI (reg:DI 93) 0) (vec_concat:V2DI (mem/u:DI (const:DI (plus:DI (symbol_ref/f:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2] ) (const_int 11532131096 [0x2af5e5b18]))) [1

[Bug target/91814] [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/91814] New: [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91814 Bug ID: 91814 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in elimination_costs_in_insn, at reload1.c:3549 since r274926 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords