[Bug c++/92084] New: [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'compound_expr' in gimplify_scan_omp_clauses, at gimplify.c:9039

implify_scan_omp_clauses, at gimplify.c:9039 4 | #pragma omp taskgroup task_reduction (* : uj[ct]) | ^~~ 0x7665f6 tree_contains_struct_check_failed(tree_node const*, tree_node_structure_enum, char const*, int, char const*) /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.0.0_alpha20191

[Bug rtl-optimization/91860] [10 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at rtl.h:2279 with -Og -fipa-cp -g --param=max-combine-insns=3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860 --- Comment #11 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Jim Wilson from comment #9) > Created attachment 47008 [details] > second untested fix Thank you for taking care about this bugreport. I've been testing this patch for several days, and found no

[Bug target/92083] -mlong-double-64 strange results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92083 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/92083] New: -mlong-double-64 strange results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92083 Bug ID: 92083 Summary: -mlong-double-64 strange results Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assi

[Bug debug/59319] gcc does not emit DW_AT_friend or DW_TAG_friend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59319 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- Now that I've closed bug 49348, this is the last bug left open blocking bug 63243

[Bug debug/63243] [meta-bug] RH GDB project tracker

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63243 Bug 63243 depends on bug 49348, which changed state. Bug 49348 Summary: DW_TAG_template_* DIEs missing from template specializations https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug debug/49348] DW_TAG_template_* DIEs missing from template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49348 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/58036] [meta-bug] alias.c:base_alias_check says stack accesses with different base registers don't alias

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58036 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|53705, 58029, 50063, 54921 | Depends on|

[Bug c++/92082] New: ICE with concepts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92082 Bug ID: 92082 Summary: ICE with concepts Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassign

[Bug libgomp/92081] FAIL: libgomp.fortran/target-simd.f90 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92081 --- Comment #1 from John David Anglin --- Revision 276732 was okay.

[Bug libgomp/92081] New: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/target-simd.f90 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92081 Bug ID: 92081 Summary: FAIL: libgomp.fortran/target-simd.f90 execution test Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug debug/91929] missing inline subroutine information in build using sin/cos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91929 --- Comment #5 from Milian Wolff --- > Note the line number program should have picked up a location from the surrounding code, at least the surrounding function, so the ?? in the backtraces look like a consumer (perf) issue to me. All major DWA

[Bug target/87243] FSF GCC needs to do something special (like using xcrun) on darwin18 to find system headers in SDK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87243 --- Comment #10 from Jack Howarth --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #8) Why can't maybe_get_sysroot_from_sdkroot() be expanded so that it attempts to execute 'xcrun --show-sdk-path' to obtain SDKROOT when unset? IMHO, this would mitigate

template auto deduction ICE in the latest gcc master version.

https://github.com/euloanty/fast_io/blob/master/examples/0036.concepts_check/iostrm.cc cqwrteur@DESKTOP-7H7UHQ9:/mnt/d/hg/fast_io/examples/build$ ninja [1/2] Building CXX object CMakeFiles/iostrm.dir/0036.concepts_check/iostrm.cc.o FAILED: CMakeFiles/iostrm.dir/0036.concepts_check/iostrm.cc.o /u

[Bug fortran/92072] [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/91513] Non-standard terminology in error message for pointer component assignment in pure procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91513 --- Comment #5 from Damian Rouson --- Thanks, Steve!

[Bug fortran/91513] Non-standard terminology in error message for pointer component assignment in pure procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91513 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/91513] Non-standard terminology in error message for pointer component assignment in pure procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91513 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sun Oct 13 17:16:40 2019 New Revision: 276941 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276941&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-10-13 Damian Rouson PR fortran/91513 *

[Bug other/89863] [meta-bug] Issues that static analyzers (cppcheck, clang-static-analyzer) find that gcc misses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863 Bug 89863 depends on bug 90297, which changed state. Bug 90297 Summary: gcc/fortran/resolve.c: 2 * possibly redundant code ? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug fortran/90297] gcc/fortran/resolve.c: 2 * possibly redundant code ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/90297] gcc/fortran/resolve.c: 2 * possibly redundant code ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sun Oct 13 16:51:33 2019 New Revision: 276940 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276940&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-10-13 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/90297

[Bug libstdc++/92059] Crash on tr2::dynamic_bitset::operator=() with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059 --- Comment #11 from John Harris --- Great. Thanks for the quick and thorough response.

[Bug target/92051] Many aarch64 SVE tests fail with ICE (expected integer_cst, have poly_int_cst in to_wide)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92051 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/92033] ICE during dom with -march=armv8.2-a+sve

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 f

[Bug libfortran/90374] Fortran 2018: Support d0.d, e0.d, es0.d, en0.d, g0.d and ew.d e0 edit descriptors for output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90374 --- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle --- Almost have this one. I am working out some details related to -std= specifier and also the exponent length business.

[Bug target/82887] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2287 (unrecognizable insn) with _mm512_extracti64x4_epi64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82887 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/80206] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2327

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80206 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marcin.slusarz at intel dot com --- Comm

[Bug c++/86403] Deduction guides not supported in local classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86403 Jonathan Poelen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jonathan.poelen at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/82887] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2287 (unrecognizable insn) with _mm512_extracti64x4_epi64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82887 --- Comment #5 from Peter Cordes --- Reported bug 92080 for the missed CSE

[Bug tree-optimization/92080] New: Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92080 Bug ID: 92080 Summary: Missed CSE of _mm512_set1_epi8(c) with _mm256_set1_epi8(c) Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug fortran/92017] ICE in gfc_expr_attr, at fortran/primary.c:2674

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92017 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/82887] ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2287 (unrecognizable insn) with _mm512_extracti64x4_epi64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82887 Peter Cordes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter at cordes dot ca --- Comment #4 fro

[Bug fortran/92017] ICE in gfc_expr_attr, at fortran/primary.c:2674

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92017 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sun Oct 13 13:42:30 2019 New Revision: 276938 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276938&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-10-13 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/92017 * expr.c (

[Bug fortran/92017] ICE in gfc_expr_attr, at fortran/primary.c:2674

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92017 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/92057] variant converting constructor fails for primitives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057 --- Comment #5 from pj at patrickjohnston dot org --- So then why does `std::variant{600}` work just fine? (Where `Double` is defined by `struct Double { double x; Double(int){} };`)

[Bug fortran/92065] [7/8/9/10 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug web/89964] Remove the "First, you must pick a product on which to enter a bug:" page

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89964 Frédéric Buclin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/92066] [10 regression] Many vectorization tests FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92066 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug c/92079] ice in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92079 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-valid-code | Status|WAITING

[Bug c/92079] ice in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92079 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/92079] ice in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92079 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- The bug seems to start someplace between revision 276650 and 276700. I will have my usual go at reducing the code.

[Bug c/92079] New: ice in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92079 Bug ID: 92079 Summary: ice in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c