[Bug sanitizer/95693] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Incorrect error from undefined behavior sanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95693 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #40 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, richard-gccbugzilla at metafoo dot co.uk wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #37 from Richard Smith > --- > (In reply to Richard Bi

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #39 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, andrew2085 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 > > --- Comment #38 from Andrew Downing --- > > int *p; > > int x; > > if () > >

[Bug sanitizer/95693] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Incorrect error from undefined behavior sanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95693 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/95690] [11 Regression] ICE in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, at emit-rtl.c:2092

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Ta

[Bug fortran/95689] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in check_sym_interfaces, at fortran/interface.c:2015

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.5

[Bug c++/95686] undefined reference to static local variable within inline function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|11.0|9.3.0 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug rtl-optimization/95685] Loop invariants can't be moved out of the loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95685 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/95685] Loop invariants can't be moved out of the loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95685 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- I wonder why CSE2 (after loop) does not catch the redundancies at least. Hmm, guess EBB is too local? But then there's gcse2?

[Bug c++/95693] New: Incorrect error from undefined behavior sanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95693 Bug ID: 95693 Summary: Incorrect error from undefined behavior sanitizer Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #38 from Andrew Downing --- > int *p; > int x; > if () >p = &x; > else >p = malloc (4); > memcpy (p, q, 4); > > there is a single memcpy call and the standard says that both the dynamic > type transfers (from q) and that

[Bug target/95683] RISC-V: internal compiler error: in riscv_gpr_save_operation_p, at config/riscv/riscv.c:5219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95683 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Kito Cheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:beaf12b49ae030505194cdcac18b5c8533a43921 commit r11-1346-gbeaf12b49ae030505194cdcac18b5c8533a43921 Author: Kito Cheng Date: Tue Jun

[Bug target/95676] [armhf] g++ mis-compiles code at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95676 --- Comment #2 from James McCoy --- Apologies for leaving off the build/configure information. I shouldn't have assumed one would have access to Debian's compiler. --8<-- abel% g++ -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=g++ COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/u

[Bug tree-optimization/95685] Loop invariants can't be moved out of the loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95685 --- Comment #1 from Jim Wilson --- The problem with the constant isn't apparent until we reach RTL generation and see that it requires two instructions to load. Then once in RTL optimization passes we have mostly block local optimizations that a

[Bug target/95632] Redundant zero extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95632 --- Comment #4 from Jim Wilson --- Created attachment 48737 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48737&action=edit proof of concept patch for changing xor with a large constant needs cleanup and testing to be useful

[Bug target/95632] Redundant zero extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95632 --- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson --- It isn't possible to have patterns that match only in combine. If we add a pattern to accept (xor (reg) (large constant)) then it could match in any optimization pass, and could prevent us from optimizing away

[Bug target/95637] Read-only data assigned to `.sdata' rather than `.rodata'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95637 --- Comment #3 from Jim Wilson --- People have asked about constant pools before, but as far as I know no one has tried to implement support for them yet. We don't have a pc-relative load, so it would be a two instruction sequence with auipc. U

[Bug c++/95672] ICE in cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic, at cp/typeck2.c:584

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95672 Nicholas Krause changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug inline-asm/95692] PPC64, suspicious store in front of inline assembly section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95692 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-15 Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug inline-asm/95692] New: PPC64, suspicious store in front of inline assembly section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95692 Bug ID: 95692 Summary: PPC64, suspicious store in front of inline assembly section Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #37 from Richard Smith --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #36) > The main issue I see is that this differing expectations of C and C++ are > impossible to get correct at the same time. That is a rather bold claim. I think

[Bug regression/95673] Inconsistent optimization behavior when there is a buffer overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95673 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/95687] ICE in get_unique_hashed_string, at fortran/class.c:508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch posted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054527.html

[Bug ada/95691] New: Functions for case insensitive comparison of wide strings are not implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95691 Bug ID: 95691 Summary: Functions for case insensitive comparison of wide strings are not implemented Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/95687] ICE in get_unique_hashed_string, at fortran/class.c:508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.

[Bug fortran/95689] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in check_sym_interfaces, at fortran/interface.c:2015

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch submitted for review: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-June/054525.html

[Bug fortran/95689] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in check_sym_interfaces, at fortran/interface.c:2015

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug gcov-profile/95348] GCC records zero functions and modules in the profiling data file, ICC does NOT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348 --- Comment #37 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- So, the previous prof data size for the real application might not be correct. After this bug is fixed, we might need to collect the new real code size reduction.

[Bug gcov-profile/95348] GCC records zero functions and modules in the profiling data file, ICC does NOT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95348 --- Comment #36 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- I found a bug with this proposed patch: when doing automatic merging, the following error message is emitted: Merge mismatch for function 1. the bug can be repeated with the small testing case I

[Bug fortran/95687] ICE in get_unique_hashed_string, at fortran/class.c:508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-15 CC|

[Bug fortran/95690] [11 Regression] ICE in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, at emit-rtl.c:2092

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug tree-optimization/95649] [11 Regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: cunroll since r11-1146-g1396fa5b91cfa0b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95649 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #6 fr

[Bug fortran/95688] ICE in gfc_get_string, at fortran/iresolve.c:70

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95688 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/95689] ICE in check_sym_interfaces, at fortran/interface.c:2015

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldot at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/95690] [11 Regression] ICE in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, at emit-rtl.c:2092

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/95662] [11 regression] ICE at gimple-expr.c:87 since r11-1146

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95662 --- Comment #2 from Bill Seurer --- OK. If you fix the other one I will try it and see if it fixes this, too.

[Bug fortran/94109] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Memory leak introduced in 8.3.0->8.3.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94109 --- Comment #22 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #21) > As for a workaround for memory leaks, you can always add > > if (.not. allocated(a)) deallocate (a) Of course, that should be if (allocated(a)) deallocate

[Bug fortran/95690] New: [11 Regression] ICE in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, at emit-rtl.c:2092

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95690 Bug ID: 95690 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in set_mem_attributes_minus_bitpos, at emit-rtl.c:2092 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/95689] New: ICE in check_sym_interfaces, at fortran/interface.c:2015

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95689 Bug ID: 95689 Summary: ICE in check_sym_interfaces, at fortran/interface.c:2015 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug fortran/95688] New: ICE in gfc_get_string, at fortran/iresolve.c:70

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95688 Bug ID: 95688 Summary: ICE in gfc_get_string, at fortran/iresolve.c:70 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fo

[Bug fortran/95687] New: ICE in get_unique_hashed_string, at fortran/class.c:508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95687 Bug ID: 95687 Summary: ICE in get_unique_hashed_string, at fortran/class.c:508 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug c++/95672] ICE in cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic, at cp/typeck2.c:584

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95672 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/95662] [11 regression] ICE at gimple-expr.c:87 since r11-1146

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95662 --- Comment #1 from Aldy Hernandez --- This is likely a duplicate of pr95649 (see my note there), but I cannot verify as I don't have access to the spec2006 sources.

[Bug c++/95678] [9 Regression] ICE in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.c:25610

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95678 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose --- the gcc-9 branch from 20200408 works for me. 20200615 also fails. : In instantiation of ‘decltype (c::d{l}) c::operator()(bb, e) [with bb = int*; e = unsigned int; b = int*]’: :9:37: internal compiler

[Bug tree-optimization/95649] [11 Regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: cunroll since r11-1146-g1396fa5b91cfa0b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95649 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 f

[Bug c++/95686] New: undefined reference to static local variable within inline function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95686 Bug ID: 95686 Summary: undefined reference to static local variable within inline function Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/95653] [11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in gimple_bb (gimple.h:1847) with -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-scev-cprop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95653 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/95649] [11 Regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: cunroll since r11-1146-g1396fa5b91cfa0b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95649 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/95649] [11 Regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: cunroll since r11-1146-g1396fa5b91cfa0b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95649 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug tree-optimization/95649] [11 Regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: cunroll since r11-1146-g1396fa5b91cfa0b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95649 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Aldy Herna

[Bug c/95625] missing detail in -Waddress initializing a function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95625 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |c --- Comment #1 from Martin Sebor --- A

[Bug d/95680] libdruntime doesn't support shadow stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95680 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/95684] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug d/95680] libdruntime doesn't support shadow stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95680 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0) > libdruntime manipulates user stack. It doesn't support shadow stack from > Intel CET: > > https://software.intel.com/content/www/us/en/develop/articles/intel-sdm.html >

[Bug c++/95684] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/95562] [10/11 Regression] ICE when using noexcept depending on boolean template parameter since r10-1280-g78f7607db4c53f8c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95562 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janezz55 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/95684] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684 --- Comment #3 from Janez Zemva --- Isn't a link to the source code sufficient? You can generate your own, if you want.

[Bug tree-optimization/95685] New: Loop invariants can't be moved out of the loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95685 Bug ID: 95685 Summary: Loop invariants can't be moved out of the loop Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: t

[Bug c++/95684] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/95684] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684 --- Comment #1 from Janez Zemva --- Everything works with clang version 10.0.0.

[Bug c++/95684] New: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95684 Bug ID: 95684 Summary: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #13 from Maxim Britov --- New report https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208187 Thanks!

[Bug target/95683] RISC-V: internal compiler error: in riscv_gpr_save_operation_p, at config/riscv/riscv.c:5219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95683 Kito Cheng changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-15 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/95683] New: internal compiler error: in riscv_gpr_save_operation_p, at config/riscv/riscv.c:5219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95683 Bug ID: 95683 Summary: internal compiler error: in riscv_gpr_save_operation_p, at config/riscv/riscv.c:5219 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCO

[Bug fortran/95682] New: Default assignment fails with allocatable array of deferred-length strings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95682 Bug ID: 95682 Summary: Default assignment fails with allocatable array of deferred-length strings Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug middle-end/95681] New: False positive uninitialized variable usage in decNumberCompareTotalMag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95681 Bug ID: 95681 Summary: False positive uninitialized variable usage in decNumberCompareTotalMag Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build, d

[Bug target/95674] Unnecessary move when doing division-by-multiplication

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95674 --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- PR 95442 is also REG_DEAD related.

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug d/95680] New: libdruntime doesn't support shadow stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95680 Bug ID: 95680 Summary: libdruntime doesn't support shadow stack Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Please report it to kernel bugzilla or whatever objtool has bugtracker. https://bugs.gentoo.org/642924 is very likely exactly the same thing, but not sure if they have reported it upstream.

[Bug target/95524] Subtimal codegen for shift by constant for v16qi/v32qi under -march=skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95524 --- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #0) > icc has > --- > ashift(char __vector(16)): > vpsllwxmm1, xmm0, 5 #9.16 > vpand xmm0, xmm1, XMMWORD PTR .L_2il

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|WAITING --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- Do -

[Bug target/95524] Subtimal codegen for shift by constant for v16qi/v32qi under -march=skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95524 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- Microbenchmark show on Skylake client --- benchmark Skylake client ashift improvement v16qi 13% v32qi 5% v64qi 7% ashiftrt v16qi 5% v32q

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 > > --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- > So yes, the static_cast should evaluate to

[Bug target/95676] [armhf] g++ mis-compiles code at -O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95676 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/95646] arm-none-eabi function attribute 'cmse_nonsecure_entry' wipes register values with -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95646 avieira at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-06-15 Ever confirme

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- So yes, the static_cast should evaluate to zero, but if it's followed by a dereference then it seems reasonable to expect -fdelete-null-pointer-checks to optimize away the handling for zero.

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- Dereferencing in the null case is undefined.

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 > > --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- > Or to be more clear: > > struct Large { >

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Resolut

[Bug c++/95677] undefined reference to `(anonymous namespace)::xx'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --- Yep, I've already created a reduced-testcase myself: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671#c6

[Bug c++/95678] [9 Regression] ICE in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.c:25610

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95678 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.3.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #9 from Maxim Britov --- Created attachment 48733 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48733&action=edit gcc -E ... I believe attachment is what you aksed. I did gcc -E -Wp,-MD,arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/.vsyscall_64.o.

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING

[Bug c++/95677] undefined reference to `(anonymous namespace)::xx'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment #5 from Ric

[Bug c++/95677] undefined reference to `(anonymous namespace)::xx'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to liusujian from comment #2) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > It's more likely the GENERIC / cgraph output by the C++ frontend is not > > correct > > and works by accident withou

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška ---

[Bug c++/95677] undefined reference to `(anonymous namespace)::xx'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95677 --- Comment #3 from Nathan Sidwell --- I think the testcase is should be formed. it was ok in C++98, but that changed when anonymous namespaces gave their contents internal linkage (rather than external but with unpronounceable symbols). [basic

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #7 from Andreas Schwab --- make arch/x86/entry/vsyscall/vsyscall_64.i

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #4 from John Zwinck --- Richard Biener said: > Note it will make a difference for very large objects (and thus very large > offsets added) which may end up accessing actually mapped memory so IMHO what > clang does by default is a

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Maxim Britov from comment #4) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > > Can you please attach a pre-processed file for an object that fails with > > objtool? > > Heh... I'm afraid I need s

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #5 from Maxim Britov --- Created attachment 48732 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48732&action=edit some minimal config for kerknel 5.7 for reproduce

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #4 from Maxim Britov --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Can you please attach a pre-processed file for an object that fails with > objtool? Heh... I'm afraid I need some howto for this... :( But I made some minimal rep

[Bug c++/95672] ICE in cxx_incomplete_type_diagnostic, at cp/typeck2.c:584

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95672 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Keywords|

[Bug target/95671] Fails to build kernel 5.7 with -march=bdver{2,3,4} workaround -mno-tbm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95671 --- Comment #3 from Maxim Britov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Assuming GCC 10.1 - you didn't specify. In my env I can reproduce it on 8.3.0 / 9.2.0 / 9.3.0/ 10.1.0 Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=

[Bug target/63359] aarch64: 32bit registers in inline asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63359 andysem at mail dot ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andysem at mail dot ru --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/95679] New: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in type_has_mode_precision_p, at tree.h:6231

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95679 Bug ID: 95679 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in type_has_mode_precision_p, at tree.h:6231 Product: gcc

[Bug c++/87515] "no return statement in function returning non-void" miscompiles with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87515 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to ipelupes from comment #4) > also: adding __builtin_unreachable(); hides the warning making it even > harder to find Don't do that then :) Adding that promises the compiler your program will n

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Or to be more clear: struct Large { char pad[1024*1024]; int x; }; Large* p = 0; int i = p->x;

  1   2   >