[Bug c++/100859] [12 Regression] ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, at cp/pt.c:17520 since r12-1108-g9a5de4d5af1c10a8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100859 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, |[12 Regression] ICE in

[Bug target/100865] pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- > > Also should broadcast from register be used to avoid memory load? I think yes as long as memory load from constant pool.

[Bug libstdc++/100863] 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_init.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka --- The problem seems to be that default initialization of an unordered_map/set only default initializes the allocator object rather than value initializing it. This means the allocator's state doesn't get impl

[Bug target/100865] pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- (insn 6 5 9 2 (set (reg:V1TI 84) (mem/u/c:V1TI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2]) [0 S16 A128])) "test.c":5:3 1474 {movv1ti_internal} (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_vector:V1TI [

[Bug tree-optimization/100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I have a patch, (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior) rbitop (bit_ior bit_and) /* Similar but for comparisons which have been inverted already, Note it is hard to similulate inverted tcc_comparison due

[Bug target/100865] New: pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 Bug ID: 100865 Summary: pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug tree-optimization/100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org La

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc |powerpc64le CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||100864 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/100864] New: (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 Bug ID: 100864 Summary: (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhan

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Created attachment 50905 [details] > Patch which is in testing (needs testcases) > > As I said for the case in this PR, it needs > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ams at gnu dot org --- Comment #10 from

[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 --- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner --- Note, in looking at Carl's patch, it is only for adding the built-ins. I don't believe it adds direct support for {,u}divti3 and {,u}moddti3 to implement these for normal __int128 variables.

[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01 Status|UNCONF

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Last reconfirmed|2

[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- The virtual dtor forces an out-of-line call to the Grommet dtor which then calls ::operator delete(), so the warning has nothing to complain about. It sees this code (compile with -fdump-tree-optimized=/dev/

[Bug tree-optimization/67731] Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 --- Comment #2 from Joseph C. Sible --- Wait, if it's just checking whether the calls to operator new and operator delete match up, then why does adding "virtual ~Widget() {}" make the warning go away?

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 50905 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50905&action=edit Patch which is in testing (needs testcases) As I said for the case in this PR, it needs https://gcc.gnu.org/pip

[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c/100854] TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100854 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote: > This could be considered a bug in TS 18661-3 which stipulates that > __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ take backwards-incompatible val

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Hi Alexander, You do not say what the actual target you used is? powerpc-linux, powerpc64-linux, powerpc64le-linux, something else entirely?

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/97690] (cond ? 2 : 0) is not optimized to int(cond) << 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97690 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by William Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d75b5cd9a362172838825c7083a3afa2403735a commit r11-8496-g3d75b5cd9a362172838825c7083a3afa2403735a Author: Bill Schmidt

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- I cannot reproduce failures for powerpc64le on P10 LE.

[Bug libstdc++/100863] New: 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_init.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863 Bug ID: 100863 Summary: 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_in it.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug middle-end/100685] #pragma GCC push_options ineffective for optimize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks. I belatedly realized that the test case didn't reproduce the problem I was seeing. The one below demonstrates that the -O1 option does override the -O2 set earlier. Sorry for the noise! $ cat pr10

[Bug c++/65816] Constructor delegation does not perform zero-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac0bc21bd634a334ba8f323c39a11f01dfdc2aae commit r12-1153-gac0bc21bd634a334ba8f323c39a11f01dfdc2aae Author: Patrick Palka Date: Tu

[Bug c++/100862] New: using enum member access fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100862 Bug ID: 100862 Summary: using enum member access fail Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ As

[Bug c++/100861] New: False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 Bug ID: 100861 Summary: False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnos

[Bug c++/100847] M1 chip: many functions not declared in "std" or "::"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100847 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/100797] [10/11 Regression] using declaration causing virtual call with wrongly adjusted this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/86115] move_alloc for class(*) containing value of type character(len=*) looses data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86115 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looking at the dump tree, it appears that the _vptr component is properly copied, but the _len component is not. But this one is needed for unlimited polymorphics.

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #17) Note this is the only start of the patches, this is not fully fixed, it is being worked on in a series of patches rather than one big one.

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f55df63154a39d67ef5b24def7044bf87300831 commit r12-1152-g9f55df63154a39d67ef5b24def7044bf87300831 Author: Andrew Pinski Date: T

[Bug fortran/100860] class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- WORKSFORME from GCC7 up to trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/95481] Failure to optimize infinite recursion for empty struct types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/95481] Failure to optimize infinite recursion for empty struct types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea418485c700494c3efdc282854c5f5a08702416 commit r12-1151-gea418485c700494c3efdc282854c5f5a08702416 Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Mo

[Bug fortran/86115] move_alloc for class(*) containing value of type character(len=*) looses data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86115 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100860] class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01 Statu

[Bug fortran/100860] New: class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 Bug ID: 100860 Summary: class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/65816] Constructor delegation does not perform zero-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug fortran/100855] pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- If you do not care about correct rounding, you can replace sum = sum + (i ** (0.05 + n)) by sum = sum + exp (log (real(i)) * (0.05 + n)) I think __builtin_powf and powf do care. I do no

[Bug c++/91859] Using destroying delete should not clobber stores to the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.2 Status|NEW

[Bug target/99725] arm: ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_adjust_cfa with -mcmse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99725 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/99725] arm: ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_adjust_cfa with -mcmse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99725 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cbde1725cac9ae53b892449c847f28f977f3a9b commit r10-9877-g1cbde1725cac9ae53b892449c847f28f977f3a9b Author: Alex Coplan Date:

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Fixed the BE problem. Will look into the GCC11 report.

[Bug fortran/100855] pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100850] [coroutine] Wrong addresses of variables captured by reference into lambda co-routines.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100850 --- Comment #3 from Vlad --- My bad. It's actually a UB. The lambda lifetime is just over by the moment of resumption of the co-routine.

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:250cf86735fc9e088cc2309c520adb655790eb99 commit r12-1147-g250cf86735fc9e088cc2309c520adb655790eb99 Author: Bill Schmidt Date:

[Bug libstdc++/100833] ranges::advance should return n when i == bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8326291695c0f13124c232ddf4fd34e3310e649 commit r12-1146-gd8326291695c0f13124c232ddf4fd34e3310e649 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/95719] [10/11 Regression] ICE in lookup_vfn_in_binfo at gcc/cp/class.c:2459 since r11-954-g0ddb93ce77374004

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b commit r10-9876-g1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/100797] [10/11 Regression] using declaration causing virtual call with wrongly adjusted this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b commit r10-9876-g1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/91859] Using destroying delete should not clobber stores to the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee3edeb01eca1cc8d7ebe777b4adb333f0c1118a commit r11-8495-gee3edeb01eca1cc8d7ebe777b4adb333f0c1118a Author: Jason Merrill D

[Bug c++/95719] [10/11 Regression] ICE in lookup_vfn_in_binfo at gcc/cp/class.c:2459 since r11-954-g0ddb93ce77374004

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 commit r11-8494-g7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/100797] [10/11 Regression] using declaration causing virtual call with wrongly adjusted this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 commit r11-8494-g7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/91859] Using destroying delete should not clobber stores to the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf2b7020ee8e9745ede527b0a3b2e0ffbafd492b commit r12-1145-gcf2b7020ee8e9745ede527b0a3b2e0ffbafd492b Author: Jason Merrill Date: Fr

[Bug fortran/59202] Erroneous argument aliasing with defined assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59202 Vladimir Fuka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug c++/94492] no way to silence -Wdeprecated-copy for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:620cd7861e1266991c9c2a82e1e2d5f4d723ec88 commit r12-1144-g620cd7861e1266991c9c2a82e1e2d5f4d723ec88 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Tu

[Bug c++/100859] New: ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, at cp/pt.c:17520

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100859 Bug ID: 100859 Summary: ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, at cp/pt.c:17520 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openmp Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/100858] New: Simple common code hoisting is not performed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100858 Bug ID: 100858 Summary: Simple common code hoisting is not performed Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/100857] New: Simple common code sinking is not performed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100857 Bug ID: 100857 Summary: Simple common code sinking is not performed Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/100833] ranges::advance should return n when i == bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/100787] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure caused by r12-1077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100787 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- I believe this work is pending, but the patches are still under review.

[Bug c++/67593] Partial specialization: "Template argument involves template parameters"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67593 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pubby.8 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/51155] Incorrect sizeof and sizeof... behavior in template partial specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51155 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/100685] #pragma GCC push_options ineffective for optimize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/100841] xtensa-linux: dwarf2cfi.c:291:12: error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: 'const unsigned int' and 'int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100841 --- Comment #2 from Jan-Benedict Glaw --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Guess following could fix it > --- gcc/config/xtensa/xtensa.h.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:45.570157539 +0100 > +++ gcc/config/xtensa/xtensa.h2021-06-01 1

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Firas Khalil Khana from comment #4) > Glad I could help. Thanks for your time and effort! You're welcome. We thank you for reporting that!

[Bug target/100643] [11/12 Regression] ICE in ix86_mangle_function_version_assembler_name, at config/i386/i386-features.c:2809 since r11-7693-g1c7bec8bfbc5457c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100643 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 --- Comment #4 from Firas Khalil Khana --- Glad I could help. Thanks for your time and effort!

[Bug fortran/42954] [9/10/11/12 regression] TARGET_*_CPP_BUILTINS issues with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954 --- Comment #35 from Bill Long --- A lot of users have moved to the 10.X series of compilers, and the adventurous ones to 11.X. Will the fixes also appear in those compilers?

[Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 --- Comment #6 from vopl at bk dot ru --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > Yes, I realise that, but I think that is the same rule that means you can't > change the result of overload resolution for a given call, But I have a prec

[Bug target/100856] Arm: Multilib mapping is missing for CDE arguments.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100856 SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/100856] New: Arm: Multilib mapping is missing for CDE arguments.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100856 Bug ID: 100856 Summary: Arm: Multilib mapping is missing for CDE arguments. Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/100759] [12 regression] ICE for g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C after r12-1039 at gcc/options-save.c:13626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug other/100759] [12 regression] ICE for g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C after r12-1039 at gcc/options-save.c:13626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b195d84561a5c31108c7bbbd7c5b63fe3cebe35f commit r12-1142-gb195d84561a5c31108c7bbbd7c5b63fe3cebe35f Author: Martin Liska Date: Tue

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9/10/11/12 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #68 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #67) > According to gcc-testresults, we still see: > FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue > "Performing shrink-wrapping" > FAIL: gc

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9/10/11/12 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #67 from Christophe Lyon --- According to gcc-testresults, we still see: FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "Performing shrink-wrapping" FAIL: gcc.target/arm/addr-modes-float.c scan-assembler vst3.8\t{

[Bug driver/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #19 from wavexx at thregr dot org --- I don't follow gcc development too closely. I expected this bug to be closed when the relevant patch was applied automatically, but I could test if this still apllied. Which gcc release is suffici

[Bug fortran/100855] New: pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 Bug ID: 100855 Summary: pow run time gfortran vs ifort Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug libstdc++/99453] libstdc++*-gdb.py installation depends on library naming

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f7bc160b4a0f27dce248d1226e3ae7104b0e67b commit r12-1141-g9f7bc160b4a0f27dce248d1226e3ae7104b0e67b Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdbd0cb73af527f0630f0cbb26edb8584f593fea commit r12-1140-gfdbd0cb73af527f0630f0cbb26edb8584f593fea Author: Martin Liska Date: Tue

[Bug fortran/96012] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2558

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/71283] Inconsistent location for C++ warning options in the manual

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.5 |---

[Bug driver/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to wavexx from comment #17) > I wish this would be given a nudge, considering the patch. This has been > pushed to new releases since 2016 :( I see several patches have been committed alread

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/85004] ambiguous diagnostic: passing ‘const S’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.5 |---

[Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, I realise that, but I think that is the same rule that means you can't change the result of overload resolution for a given call, which is why the second definition gets emitted using the same symbol

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9/10/11/12 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #66 from Richard

[Bug target/84467] Choosing between Integer and NEON for 64-bit operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84467 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/95650] aarch64: Missed optimization storing addition of two shorts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95650 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- AArch32 is able to produce the optimal sequence because the ABI specifies caller widening of parameters. For safety reasons AArch64 takes the opposite approach and requires the callee to narrow arguments.

[Bug c/100854] New: TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100854 Bug ID: 100854 Summary: TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/100853] internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:4148

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100853 --- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- Created attachment 50903 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50903&action=edit repro

[Bug c++/100853] New: internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:4148

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100853 Bug ID: 100853 Summary: internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:4148 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >