[Bug c/82200] Unhelpful diagnostic for incorrectly ordered attribute and asm on function declaration in system header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82200 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/87249] Undefined reference within a header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87249 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, if you only declare the function template in the header and define it in some other .cpp file, then of course you need to explicitly instantiate it to generate code for that specialization. This bug w

[Bug target/90308] New: ICE in output_operand: invalid %-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90308 Bug ID: 90308 Summary: ICE in output_operand: invalid %-code Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/90308] ICE in output_operand: invalid %-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90308 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm-linux-gnueabi Status|UNCO

[Bug tree-optimization/90020] [7/8 regression] -O2 -Os x86-64 wrong code generated for GNU Emacs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90020 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #20 f

[Bug libstdc++/90299] std::filesystem::absolute("") and std::filesystem::absolute("", ec) behave differently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90299 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88809] do not use rep-scasb for inline strlen/memchr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Thu May 2 07:57:38 2019 New Revision: 270787 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270787&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Prefer to use strlen call instead of inline expansion (PR target/88809).

[Bug target/88809] do not use rep-scasb for inline strlen/memchr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88809 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/90308] ICE in output_operand: invalid %-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90308 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/90308] ICE in output_operand: invalid %-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90308 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/89400] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE: output_operand: invalid %-code with -march=armv6kz -mthumb -munaligned-access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400 Ramana Radhakrishnan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug driver/89885] --help=warning prints wrongly default values for options set via e.g. -Wall or -Wextra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89885 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ada/90206] GNAT gcc ada function out argument not support with -gnat12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90206 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/55735] ICE with deferred-length strings in COMMON

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55735 --- Comment #11 from Jürgen Reuter --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #10) > Interestingly, nagfor rejects this code with the message "Inconsistent > definitions of COMMON block FOO in program-units $block and BAR". Both ifort > and pgfo

[Bug fortran/60560] Problem allocating character array with assumed length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60560 --- Comment #2 from Jürgen Reuter --- This is still present in the 10.0 trunk. How difficult is that to fix?

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64120 --- Comment #12 from Jürgen Reuter --- Paul, getting back to this one? At first glance seems not overly much work left for the remaining case.

[Bug tree-optimization/90303] [9/10 Regression] ICE in hash_odr_name with fastcall attribute starting with r267359

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/65381] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE during array result, assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65381 --- Comment #6 from Jürgen Reuter --- I do not get an ICE with the abridged versions from #5, only for the original code.

[Bug tree-optimization/90303] [9/10 Regression] ICE in hash_odr_name with fastcall attribute starting with r267359

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- > This comes from build_type_attribute_qual_variant: > 1159 if (ntype != dtype) > 1160/* This variant was already in the hash table, don't mess with > 1161 TYPE_CANONICAL. */

[Bug gcov-profile/47618] Collecting multiple profiles and using all for PGO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618 --- Comment #26 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to qinzhao from comment #25) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24) > > > > > How about the patch for the above 2? has it been committed? > > > > It has been there for a while, please take

[Bug tree-optimization/90303] [9/10 Regression] ICE in hash_odr_name with fastcall attribute starting with r267359

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- No, TYPE_CANONICAL (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (type)) is also NULL, for the same reasons. It is a template instantiation with a template parameter that needs structural equality.

[Bug target/87833] [9/10 Regression] Intel MIC (emulated) offloading: "relocation [...] can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwing

[Bug c/90293] New function attribute: expect_return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90293 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/90309] New: Spurious warning shift-negative-value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309 Bug ID: 90309 Summary: Spurious warning shift-negative-value Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug tree-optimization/90303] [9/10 Regression] ICE in hash_odr_name with fastcall attribute starting with r267359

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- I see, i suppose we may lose some optimizations in early opts because of this but your patch is safe and I don't think the missed optimizations are very important (if they are we should avoid having structural

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] New: [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 Bug ID: 90310 Summary: [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug rtl-optimization/90311] New: [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311 Bug ID: 90311 Summary: [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wr

[Bug sanitizer/90312] New: Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312 Bug ID: 90312 Summary: Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug debug/86964] [7/8 Regression] Too many debug symbols included, especially for extern globals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 30 Apr 2019, patrickdepinguin at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86964 > > --- Comment #11 from Thomas De Schampheleire com> --- > It seems the neces

[Bug debug/90273] [10 Regression] GCC runs out of memory building Firefox

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/45375] [meta-bug] Issues with building Mozilla (i.e. Firefox) with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 Bug 45375 depends on bug 90273, which changed state. Bug 90273 Summary: [10 Regression] GCC runs out of memory building Firefox https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273 What|Removed |Added

[Bug debug/90273] [10 Regression] GCC runs out of memory building Firefox

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90273 --- Comment #31 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu May 2 11:17:00 2019 New Revision: 270791 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270791&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-05-02 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/90273

[Bug lto/51765] [9/10 Regression] Testsuite ICEs with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/51765] [9/10 Regression] Testsuite ICEs with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 1 May 2019, asolokha at gmx dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51765 > > --- Comment #10 from Arseny Solokha --- > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8) >

[Bug tree-optimization/90285] Poor optimised codegen for memmove() back on top of oneself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug c++/90301] RangeV3 usage, ICE internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90301 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-checking, |

[Bug sanitizer/90312] Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/90302] Implement __builtin_warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90302 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- I'm not sure a function call is the proper way to handle this. It would maybe be better to use a DEBUG-stmt like thing (maybe even actually a debug stmt!). In theory it would be possible to emit those into

[Bug sanitizer/90312] Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC|mliska at suse dot cz | Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/90303] [9/10 Regression] ICE in hash_odr_name with fastcall attribute starting with r267359

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90303 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug sanitizer/90312] Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 46275 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46275&action=edit Untested patch

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #1 from Marti

[Bug c++/90304] -O3 vectorization gets worse when code is moved into main()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90304 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug rtl-optimization/90311] [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #1 from Marti

[Bug pch/90306] ICE when using precompiled headers with -MD and -fpch-deps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90306 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/90307] -Wuninitialized only at -O1, not at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90307 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug c++/90309] Spurious warning shift-negative-value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90309 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Target|

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.5

[Bug rtl-optimization/90311] [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug tree-optimization/90285] Poor optimised codegen for memmove() back on top of oneself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285 --- Comment #2 from Niall Douglas --- To put this into a wider context, the detach and attach cast proposal passed muster earlier this week at the WG14 meeting that I am currently sitting in. The current C2x draft allows this implementation of "u

[Bug tree-optimization/90285] Poor optimised codegen for memmove() back on top of oneself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #2) > To put this into a wider context, the detach and attach cast proposal passed > muster earlier this week at the WG14 meeting that I am currently sitting in. > The

[Bug tree-optimization/90285] Poor optimised codegen for memmove() back on top of oneself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285 --- Comment #4 from Niall Douglas --- > "non-aliasing reinterpret cast"? Whatever that means. > > // Reinterpret bytes by copying (not UB for TC types) > memmove(temp, &v, sizeof(T)); > > // Put reinterpreted bytes back. This avoid

[Bug rtl-optimization/90311] [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug lto/85574] [8/9 Regression] LTO bootstapped binaries differ

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85574 --- Comment #32 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu May 2 13:58:47 2019 New Revision: 270798 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270798&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-05-02 Richard Biener PR bootstrap/85574 * Mak

[Bug tree-optimization/89509] restrict doesnt work with subfield accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89509 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu May 2 14:05:27 2019 New Revision: 270799 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270799&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-05-02 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/89509

[Bug tree-optimization/89653] Missing vectorization of loop containing std::min/std::max and temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu May 2 14:08:08 2019 New Revision: 270800 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270800&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-05-02 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/89653

[Bug tree-optimization/89509] restrict doesnt work with subfield accesses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89509 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug middle-end/49774] [meta-bug] restrict qualification aliasing issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49774 Bug 49774 depends on bug 89509, which changed state. Bug 89509 Summary: restrict doesnt work with subfield accesses https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89509 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/89653] Missing vectorization of loop containing std::min/std::max and temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89653 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c++/57378] gnu multiversioning gives assembler error: foo.resolver is already defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57378 Nikolay Bogoychev changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nheart at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/90312] Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312 --- Comment #3 from Bence Szabó --- Thank you for the patch! The main blocker is some msvc specific code in sanitizer_win_defs.h. WIN_FORCE_LINK, WIN_WEAK_ALIAS, WIN_EXPORT AFAIK the sanitizer is from LLVM (or google?) and the official llvm bui

[Bug target/87833] [9/10 Regression] Intel MIC (emulated) offloading: "relocation [...] can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In r

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/87833] [9/10 Regression] Intel MIC (emulated) offloading: "relocation [...] can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Offloading

[Bug target/89795] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-dce -fno-forward-propagate -fno-sched-pressure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89795 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- *** Bug 90310 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/47618] Collecting multiple profiles and using all for PGO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618 --- Comment #27 from Qing Zhao --- > --- Comment #26 from Martin Liška --- > >> 2. Intel compiler (icc)'s profmerge is able to merge all the .dyn files >> under one directory, does gcc have such functionality currently? > > We have folder-base

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 --- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > To be honest, I can't see what you see with GCC 6. I've got: > > bl __popcountsi2 > ldr r3, .L6+16 > str r0, [r3] > lsl r0

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 --- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #3) > Can you stop opening duplicate PRs, please? It's the 4th instance. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89795 *** Sure; how do I detect if it

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- > Sure; how do I detect if it is a duplicate? Look at the different PRs, both the code, the options and the target. Isn't there an obviously redundant trend?

[Bug c++/90313] New: Is an assignment elided with gcc7.3 -O2?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90313 Bug ID: 90313 Summary: Is an assignment elided with gcc7.3 -O2? Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 --- Comment #7 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #6) > > Sure; how do I detect if it is a duplicate? > > Look at the different PRs, both the code, the options and the target. Isn't > there an obviously redundant tre

[Bug sanitizer/90312] Address sanitizer cannot be used with -mabi=ms since r266073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90312 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Bence Szabó from comment #3) > Thank you for the patch! > > The main blocker is some msvc specific code in sanitizer_win_defs.h. > WIN_FORCE_LINK, WIN_WEAK_ALIAS, WIN_EXPORT > > AFAIK the saniti

[Bug gcov-profile/47618] Collecting multiple profiles and using all for PGO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47618 --- Comment #28 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #26) > (In reply to qinzhao from comment #25) > > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #24) > > > > > > > How about the patch for the above 2? has it been committed?

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- > What is obvious to you, is not obvious to me. Most of the bug reports I > create look quite similar (both testcases and compiler flags; eg. > -fno-forward-propagate, -fno-dce, -fno-tree-dce and some other f

[Bug rtl-optimization/90311] [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/89400] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE: output_operand: invalid %-code with -march=armv6kz -mthumb -munaligned-access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89400 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org -

[Bug libstdc++/90314] New: clang gives error about exception specification in declaration not matching definition after change in move.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314 Bug ID: 90314 Summary: clang gives error about exception specification in declaration not matching definition after change in move.h Product: gcc Version: unknown

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug c++/6945] A static constant that is initialize inline is not create if only a temperary is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6945 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu May 2 15:45:04 2019 New Revision: 270807 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270807&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Improve API docs for and * config/allocator/new_allocator_base.

[Bug rtl-optimization/90311] [9/10 Regression] wrong code with -O and __builtin_add_overflow() and compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90311 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- At least from other PRs, I think it is important to differentiate in what is emitted/matched for the multi-word addition (generally that has been using CC_V mode I think on ARM) vs. what is emitted/matched fo

[Bug c++/90265] [9/10 Regression] ICE in build_call_a at gcc/cp/call.c:396 since r268377

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90265 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|2019-04-26 00:00:

[Bug pch/90306] ICE when using precompiled headers with -MD and -fpch-deps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90306 --- Comment #2 from Paul Smith --- Yes that seems like it would definitely solve the ICE. But then this bug report changes to say that the output of -fpch-deps is wrong (it's empty when it shouldn't be) :p :). That would potentially cause build

[Bug other/90315] New: [10 regression] help text (or test for help text) problem after r270788

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315 Bug ID: 90315 Summary: [10 regression] help text (or test for help text) problem after r270788 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/90316] New: large compile time increase in opt / alias stmt walking for Go example

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90316 Bug ID: 90316 Summary: large compile time increase in opt / alias stmt walking for Go example Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/90133] [7/8/9/10 Regression] Linker error from accessing event_type via use association outside associate/block scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133 --- Comment #4 from Zaak --- Sure, I understand regresion, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "has been backported to GCC6".

[Bug fortran/90133] [7/8/9/10 Regression] Linker error from accessing event_type via use association outside associate/block scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Sure, I understand regresion, but perhaps I don't understand what you mean > by "has been backported to GCC6". The patch which caused the GCC7 regression has then been applied to GCC6: 6.0.0 works,

[Bug target/90317] New: [7/8/9/10] ICE for arm sha1h and wrong optimisations on sha1h/c/m/p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90317 Bug ID: 90317 Summary: [7/8/9/10] ICE for arm sha1h and wrong optimisations on sha1h/c/m/p Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/90133] [7/8/9/10 Regression] Linker error from accessing event_type via use association outside associate/block scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90133 --- Comment #6 from Zaak --- Oh, I see, so the *bug* has been backported... sigh. Well thanks for localizing it to the range r243909-r244868. I may try to do a bisection search to find the culprit and work up a fix/patch... I haven't contributed

[Bug other/90315] [10 regression] help text (or test for help text) problem after r270788

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90315 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/90314] clang gives error about exception specification in declaration not matching definition after change in move.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90314 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/90318] New: Non-constant test names in libphobos.shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90318 Bug ID: 90318 Summary: Non-constant test names in libphobos.shared Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsui

[Bug rtl-optimization/90310] [7/8/9/10 Regression] wrong code with -Os -fno-forward-propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90310 --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > Why? Those actually proved to be very efficient way to test the backends by > exposing details late and discovered many bugs in the backends where the RTL > in t

[Bug rtl-optimization/90319] New: [C++17] aggregate initialization of base: ICE in assign_temp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90319 Bug ID: 90319 Summary: [C++17] aggregate initialization of base: ICE in assign_temp Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug lto/87833] [9/10 Regression] -fPIC -fno-PIE don't work with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87833 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/90319] [C++17] aggregate initialization of base: ICE in assign_temp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90319 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/90319] [C++17] aggregate initialization of base: ICE in assign_temp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90319 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/90320] New: Explicit constructor called implicitly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320 Bug ID: 90320 Summary: Explicit constructor called implicitly Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/90321] New: [C++17] GCC allows structured binding (decomposition) of an object of type derived from a closure type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90321 Bug ID: 90321 Summary: [C++17] GCC allows structured binding (decomposition) of an object of type derived from a closure type Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRM

[Bug libquadmath/90298] libquadmath/math/catanhq.c:113: possibly redundant code ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90298 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- This is not redundant; the point is to convert -0 to +0. Most of the libquadmath code is generated automatically from glibc sources by substitutions done by update-quadmath.py (and most of

  1   2   >