[Bug fortran/85954] [8/9 Regression] ICE in make_ssa_name_fn, at tree-ssanames.c:266

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85954 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Mon Sep 17 07:18:17 2018 New Revision: 264358 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264358&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-09-17 Paul Thomas PR fortran/85954 * resolve.c (res

[Bug ada/86659] [9 regression] gnat.dg/sso/q[23].adb FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/87329] New: ICE in patch_jump_insn, at cfgrtl.c:1271

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87329 Bug ID: 87329 Summary: ICE in patch_jump_insn, at cfgrtl.c:1271 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Prior

[Bug ada/86659] [9 regression] gnat.dg/sso/q[23].adb FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86659 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug target/87330] New: ICE in scan_rtx_reg, at regrename.c:1097

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330 Bug ID: 87330 Summary: ICE in scan_rtx_reg, at regrename.c:1097 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal Prior

[Bug target/87330] ICE in scan_rtx_reg, at regrename.c:1097

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||siddhesh at gotplt dot org

[Bug fortran/64120] [F03] Wrong handling of allocatable character string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fr

[Bug libgomp/87140] Segmentation fault in priority_list_upgrade_task function when execution tasks with priority

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87140 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/87328] [9 Regression] ICE in do_rpo_vn, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:6566

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/87322] [8/9 Regression] GCC fails to parse captured lambda of 2nd inner lambda if the captured lambda has "," (having 2 arguments)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87322 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug gcov-profile/85871] g++.dg/gcov/gcov-8.C random failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED --- Comment #10 from Martin Lišk

[Bug c++/87300] -Wredundant-move gives false positives in C++11 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87300 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Sorry you're right, I forgot we're talking about the converting case here. The move doesn't prevent elision (because elision isn't possible here).

[Bug c++/87327] [8/9 Regression] Calling member functions on captured constexpr variables "is not a constant expression"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87327 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/87239] ICE in deferred-length string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87239 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org Assigne

[Bug c/87311] missing integer overflow detection on negation of the minimum value with -ftrapv or UB sanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug fortran/86470] [6/7/8/9 Regression] [OOP] ICE with OMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86470 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- The !$ use omp_lib line isn't really needed. Started to ICE with r211397.

[Bug c++/87331] New: if delete "node->operator_type = kADD;" will report "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87331 Bug ID: 87331 Summary: if delete "node->operator_type = kADD;" will report "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault" Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/87331] if delete "node->operator_type = kADD;" will report "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87331 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/85871] [8/9 Regression] g++.dg/gcov/gcov-8.C random failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Sep 17 10:19:02 2018 New Revision: 264363 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264363&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix out-of-bounds in gcov.c (PR gcov-profile/85871). 2018-09-17 Martin

[Bug gcov-profile/85871] [8/9 Regression] g++.dg/gcov/gcov-8.C random failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Known to fail|9.0

[Bug tree-optimization/87301] [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw, but doesn't)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87301 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/87301] [9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: statement marked for throw, but doesn't)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87301 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Sep 17 10:21:21 2018 New Revision: 264364 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264364&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-09-17 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/87301

[Bug tree-optimization/87328] [9 Regression] ICE in do_rpo_vn, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:6566

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug testsuite/87304] [9 regression] gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-over-widen-1.c fails starting with r262371

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87304 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug tree-optimization/87309] [9 Regression] Spurious note: messages when building with -fopt-info-vec-optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87309 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|

[Bug c/87311] missing integer overflow detection on negation of the minimum value with -ftrapv or UB sanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Yes, I think we have quite some opportunistic replacement of traps by "correct" results (according to twos complement). -ftrapv is not getting much love and generally we recommend to use sanitizers these da

[Bug tree-optimization/87313] attribute malloc not used for alias analysis when it could be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87313 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/87314] pointless comparison of malloc result to a string not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87314 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/63155] [6/7/8/9 Regression] memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david at pgmasters dot net --- Comment

[Bug c/87316] gcc: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/87319] When vector is wrapped, expression is not optimized.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87319 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization,

[Bug tree-optimization/87320] [8/9 Regression] Last iteration of vectorized loop not executed when peeling for gaps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87320 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/87311] missing integer overflow detection on negation of the minimum value with -ftrapv or UB sanitizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87311 --- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Yes, I think we have quite some opportunistic replacement of traps by > "correct" results (according to twos complement). Yes, that's "correct" according to t

[Bug fortran/64120] [F03] Wrong handling of allocatable character string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120 --- Comment #6 from Paul Thomas --- Author: pault Date: Mon Sep 17 11:22:27 2018 New Revision: 264365 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264365&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-09-17 Paul Thomas PR fortran/64120 * trans-decl.c (

[Bug fortran/64120] [F03] Wrong handling of allocatable character string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- Fixed on trunk. It only took 4 years :-( What are you up to these days, FX? Paul

[Bug c++/86001] explicit default constructor not allowed in anonymous aggregate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86001 Raphael Kubo da Costa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||raphael.kubo.da.costa@intel

[Bug web/86315] Bugzilla: add "cc count" and "duplicate count" columns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86315 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- Is there please any update?

[Bug libstdc++/83601] std::regex_replace C++14 conformance issue: escaping in SED mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83601 Dominik Haumann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dhaumann at kde dot org --- Comment #4

[Bug other/87332] New: Issues related to Identical Code Folding (ICF)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87332 Bug ID: 87332 Summary: Issues related to Identical Code Folding (ICF) Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: meta-bug Severity: normal Priority

[Bug c++/87333] New: A stack overflow problem for c++filt

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87333 Bug ID: 87333 Summary: A stack overflow problem for c++filt Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/87316] gcc: internal compiler error: Killed (program cc1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87316 --- Comment #8 from David --- Thanks, using -ftree-coalesce-vars cuts the time down by about 5x and allows the unit tests to compile in available memory. We may be able to cut down on the number of setjmps in the unit test macros, but they are v

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #8 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7) > We cannot reasonably document that a feature does exactly the opposite of > what it is intended to do, can we? You need to compile the entire software > with

[Bug tree-optimization/87328] [9 Regression] ICE in do_rpo_vn, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:6566

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/87328] [9 Regression] ICE in do_rpo_vn, at tree-ssa-sccvn.c:6566

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87328 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Sep 17 13:28:04 2018 New Revision: 264369 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=264369&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-09-17 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/87328

[Bug tree-optimization/87325] determine_base_object does not consider consider address space of base expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87325 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug middle-end/63155] [6/7/8/9 Regression] memory hog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63155 --- Comment #25 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 44705 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44705&action=edit patch This "simple" one helps. It builds partition bases similar to the -ftree-coalesce-vars case. Correctn

[Bug c/87334] New: RFE: Add '__builtin_ms_va_list' support to ARM64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87334 Bug ID: 87334 Summary: RFE: Add '__builtin_ms_va_list' support to ARM64 Product: gcc Version: 8.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/87313] attribute malloc not used for alias analysis when it could be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87313 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/71157] -Wnull-dereference false alarm in wrong function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71157 --- Comment #12 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #10) Yes, the warning should use the %G directive. It might be worth reviewing all the middle-end warnings for this improvement. Unless we get rid of %G/%K fir

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #9 from Rich Felker --- FWIW, glibc supports building with -fstack-check and seems to be attempting to use it for this purpose too. See for example https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21253

[Bug c++/87335] New: The stack overflow in function cplus_demangle_type in cp-demangle.c:2565 (c++filt -t)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87335 Bug ID: 87335 Summary: The stack overflow in function cplus_demangle_type in cp-demangle.c:2565 (c++filt -t) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug fortran/87336] New: [8/9 regression] wrong output for pointer dummy assiocated to target actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336 Bug ID: 87336 Summary: [8/9 regression] wrong output for pointer dummy assiocated to target actual argument Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug c/87334] RFE: Add '__builtin_ms_va_list' support to ARM64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87334 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/87334] RFE: Add '__builtin_ms_va_list' support to ARM64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87334 --- Comment #2 from Michael Cronenworth --- Done: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629910

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou --- > Okay, so can you please document that -fstack-check probes one extra page > ahead by design, skipping one page adjacent to current stack pointer on the > assumption that callers are also compiled with -fst

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #11 from Rich Felker --- This problem starded because I read "not generally sufficient" in the sense that it's helpful but not a complete fix for the kinds of issues that -fstack-clash-protection mitigates. Based on my findings and fo

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- > I don't see that as implicit, and it's certainly not true for > -fstack-clash-protection. We're going in circles... -fstack-clash-protection is not stack checking a la Ada, it's stack protection against

[Bug fortran/87337] New: Internal compiler error on coarrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87337 Bug ID: 87337 Summary: Internal compiler error on coarrays Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338 Bug ID: 87338 Summary: gcc 8.2 fails to bootstrap on ia64 Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: bootstrap

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #13 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #12) > We're going in circles... -fstack-clash-protection is not stack checking a > la Ada, it's stack protection against clash attacks and it indeed has > differ

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #14 from Andreas Schwab --- (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #9) > FWIW, glibc supports building with -fstack-check and seems to be attempting > to use it for this purpose too. See for example > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/sh

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87338 --- Comment #1 from Jason Duerstock --- Here is the full build log: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-8&arch=ia64&ver=8.2.0-6&stamp=1536516302&raw=0

[Bug c/87339] New: gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87339 Bug ID: 87339 Summary: gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c FAILs Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee: una

[Bug c/87339] gcc.dg/warn-abs-1.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87339 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug middle-end/87220] -fstack-check produces inefficient and wrong tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87220 --- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou --- > To me, two things are unclear in the quote: whether the option is intended > to be used with other languages at all, and why specifically it "is not > generally sufficient to protect against stack-clash at

[Bug fortran/87336] [8/9 regression] wrong output for pointer dummy assiocated to target actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gmx dot de --- Comment #1 from

[Bug driver/29931] following argv[0] symlink in process_command breaks symlinked-together toolchain

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/29842] [meta-bug] outstanding patches / issues from STMicroelectronics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29842 Bug 29842 depends on bug 29931, which changed state. Bug 29931 Summary: following argv[0] symlink in process_command breaks symlinked-together toolchain https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29931 What|Removed

[Bug c++/86881] tree check fail with flag Wshadow-compatible-local

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nathan at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c++/86881] tree check fail with flag Wshadow-compatible-local

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86881 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/87340] New: Stack overflow problem for c++filt

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87340 Bug ID: 87340 Summary: Stack overflow problem for c++filt Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/62194] Add deadfield attribute to ignore initializers for a structure field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62194 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- I'm not sure that changing the meaning of fundamental language constructs like declarations and writes to them in such a profound way would be viewed as a good idea. One way to find out is to email the gcc ma

[Bug fortran/87341] New: gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid version 21 (max 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341 Bug ID: 87341 Summary: gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid version 21 (max 4) Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/87341] gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid version 21 (max 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341 --- Comment #1 from mi+gcc at aldan dot algebra.com --- Invoking gfortran with -v I get the following details: Driving: gfortran -v -o xscblat1 c_sblat1.o c_sblas1.o ../lib/cblas_LINUX.a -l gfortran -l m -shared-libgcc Using built-in specs. COLLE

[Bug fortran/87341] gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid version 21 (max 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341 --- Comment #2 from mi+gcc at aldan dot algebra.com --- BTW, I'd dearly love if not a fix, then a work-around ASAP. Is there some kind of command-line option I can add to gfortran's command-line? Thanks!

[Bug fortran/87341] gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid version 21 (max 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/87341] gfortran can not link executables: _edata: invalid version 21 (max 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87341 --- Comment #4 from mi+gcc at aldan dot algebra.com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > This is a binutils bug, in gold. > --enable-gold > > Please report this to binutils instead. Is there a work-around, perhaps? Some additional c

[Bug tree-optimization/87342] New: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 10 does not dominate use in block 8)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87342 Bug ID: 87342 Summary: [9 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 10 does not dominate use in block 8) Product: gcc Version: 9.0

[Bug target/87288] Segfault after const_cast with "-O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize" but _without_ "-mavx"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87288 --- Comment #4 from bin cheng --- In dump for IVOPTs, there is niter analyzed like: Applying pattern match.pd:1651, generic-match.c:16009 Analyzing # of iterations of loop 1 exit condition [1, + , 1](no_overflow) < bnd.8_41 bounds on differen

[Bug middle-end/86172] [meta-bug] issues with -Wnull-dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/80635] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 --- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > > Sadly I have no better suggestion than -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized > > Move -Wmaybe-uninitialized from -Wal

[Bug target/87330] ICE in scan_rtx_reg, at regrename.c:1097

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87330 --- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- Thanks, I'll take a look. Kyrill can you please assign the bug to me? I don't seem to have to chops to edit the bz.

[Bug c++/55588] Failure to diagnose non-template-id prefixed by keyword template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55588 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Ville Voutilainen from comment #2) > Also present in 4.9 trunk, and I recently got a user complaint about this > bug. How can I upvote? :) If Bug 86315 is fixed, adding yourself on cc will becom

[Bug tree-optimization/87325] determine_base_object does not consider consider address space of base expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87325 --- Comment #2 from bin cheng --- Seems alloc_iv doesn't infer base object correctly: /* Lower address expression in base except ones with DECL_P as operand. By doing this: 1) More accurate cost can be computed for address expressio

[Bug fortran/87336] [8/9 regression] wrong output for pointer dummy assiocated to target actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87336 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/87343] New: Incomplete documentation for built-in type traits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87343 Bug ID: 87343 Summary: Incomplete documentation for built-in type traits Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: o

[Bug c/87344] New: archival/libarchive/decompress_gunzip.c:1139:2: error: size of unnamed array is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87344 Bug ID: 87344 Summary: archival/libarchive/decompress_gunzip.c:1139:2: error: size of unnamed array is negative Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/87344] archival/libarchive/decompress_gunzip.c:1139:2: error: size of unnamed array is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87344 --- Comment #1 from Wen Yang --- Created attachment 44711 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44711&action=edit decompress_gunzip.i

[Bug c/87344] archival/libarchive/decompress_gunzip.c:1139:2: error: size of unnamed array is negative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87344 --- Comment #2 from Wen Yang --- Created attachment 44712 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44712&action=edit decompress_gunzip.i

[Bug fortran/87318] gfortran.dg/dtio_1.f90 is invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87318 --- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to janus from comment #4) > (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #3) > > Created attachment 44700 [details] > > Revised dtio_1.f90 > > > > Will this attached version suffice? > > Look

[Bug fortran/87318] gfortran.dg/dtio_1.f90 is invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87318 --- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #5) > > Do you think it's feasible to add some sort of diagnostics for this problem? > > Or should we rather follow ifort's approach and enforce this restrict