[Bug tree-optimization/90213] UBSAN: signed integer overflow: -5621332293356458048 * 8 cannot be represented in type 'long int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90213 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug other/63426] [meta-bug] Issues found with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63426 Bug 63426 depends on bug 90213, which changed state. Bug 90213 Summary: UBSAN: signed integer overflow: -5621332293356458048 * 8 cannot be represented in type 'long int' https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90213 What|Remo

[Bug middle-end/89677] [7 Regression] internal compiler error: in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1549

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89677 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/90071] [7 Regression] internal compiler error: SSA corruption

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90071 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug debug/90194] ICE in expand_debug_expr, at cfgexpand.c:5244

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90194 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/90474] [7 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: DECL_GIMPLE_REG_P set on a variable with address taken; error: invalid address operand in MEM_REF)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90474 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug target/91481] POWER9 "DARN" RNG intrinsic produces repeated output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/91481] POWER9 "DARN" RNG intrinsic produces repeated output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91481 --- Comment #15 from Jack Lloyd --- Thanks for the fast fix and backporting

[Bug c++/91618] New: template-id required to friend a function template, even for a qualified-id

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618 Bug ID: 91618 Summary: template-id required to friend a function template, even for a qualified-id Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug c++/91369] Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug testsuite/91619] New: New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr81740-2.c fails on powerpc64 power7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91619 Bug ID: 91619 Summary: New test case gcc.dg/vect/pr81740-2.c fails on powerpc64 power7 BE Product: gcc Version: 8.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/91584] [9 Regression] Bogus warning from -Warray-bounds during string assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91584 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Aug 30 17:42:57 2019 New Revision: 275210 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275210&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/91584 - Bogus warning from -Warray-bounds during string assi

[Bug middle-end/91584] [9 Regression] Bogus warning from -Warray-bounds during string assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91584 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.0 Known to fail|

[Bug middle-end/91599] GCC does not say where warning is happening

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91599 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91599] GCC does not say where warning is happening

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91599 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Aug 30 17:49:17 2019 New Revision: 275211 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275211&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR middle-end/91599 - GCC does not say where warning is happening gcc/Cha

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 91599, which changed state. Bug 91599 Summary: GCC does not say where warning is happening https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91599 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/91605] [10 Regression] ICE in ix86_avx256_split_vector_move_misalign, at config/i386/i386-expand.c:489 since r274986

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91605 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- Hmm, for whatever reason the decl-align of the "to" is 256 bit normally but when -fpack-struct is used only 8 bit aligned, but it is a reg. The reason for the ICE is that the movmisalign optab is rightfully

[Bug rtl-optimization/64895] RA picks the wrong register for -fipa-ra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64895 --- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Fri Aug 30 19:00:44 2019 New Revision: 275213 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275213&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [Darwin, testsuite] Backport fix for 64895 XPASSes. These tests don't fail

[Bug c++/91620] New: [forward_]list::remove_if should respect to DR 529

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620 Bug ID: 91620 Summary: [forward_]list::remove_if should respect to DR 529 Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug libstdc++/91620] [forward_]list::remove_if should respect to DR 526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620 --- Comment #1 from frankhb1989 at gmail dot com --- (The issue number in the case seems a typo. It is introduced in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL358534.)

[Bug fortran/91556] Problems with better interface checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #18) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > > The current solution is a bit annoying for implicitly-derived interfaces. > > > > Consider a code like: >

[Bug target/91602] GCC fails to build for riscv in a combined tree due to misconfigured leb128 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- >Combined tree builds are obsolete and shouldn't be used anymore.) Huh? Where is that documented. In fact the wiki still recommends a combined build. Combined builds make building easier.

[Bug fortran/91556] Problems with better interface checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 --- Comment #20 from Steve Kargl --- On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 07:43:54PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 > > --- Comment #19 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Thomas Koe

[Bug target/90698] Darwin X86 backend lacks support for mcmodel={medium, large, kernel}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90698 --- Comment #8 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Fri Aug 30 20:02:13 2019 New Revision: 275224 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275224&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [Darwin, X86, testsuite] Add xfails for PR90698. We don't have support for

[Bug middle-end/91606] [9/10 regression] Optimization leads to invalid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91606 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91607] [9 regression] internal compiler error: in equal, at cp/constexpr.c:1088

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91607 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/91602] GCC fails to build for riscv in a combined tree due to misconfigured leb128 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602 --- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson --- The wiki is wrong. Combined tree builds should not be used anymore. Combined tree builds date back to when Cygnus was maintainer for everything. We put everything in a single source tree, and wrote configure

[Bug target/91602] GCC fails to build for riscv in a combined tree due to misconfigured leb128 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91602 --- Comment #6 from Jim Wilson --- By the way, the underlying problem here is, as Andrew Waterman mentioned, that the RISC-V linker does aggressive link time relaxations to reduce code size, and this makes lib128 with label subtraction unsafe. T

[Bug fortran/91556] Problems with better interface checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91556 --- Comment #21 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:38:09PM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #18 from Thomas Koenig --- > (In reply to anlauf from comment #14) > > The current solution is a bit annoying for impl

[Bug go/91621] New: libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test ==

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91621 Bug ID: 91621 Summary: libgo/mksysinfo.sh: please avoid test == Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: go

[Bug c++/91618] template-id required to friend a function template, even for a qualified-id

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCONFI

[Bug c++/91618] template-id required to friend a function template, even for a qualified-id

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91618 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Started with r249385.

[Bug fortran/91551] [9/10 Regression] ICE in sort_actual, at fortran/intrinsic.c:4193

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91551 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Aug 30 23:02:37 2019 New Revision: 275228 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275228&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91551

[Bug fortran/91551] [9/10 Regression] ICE in sort_actual, at fortran/intrinsic.c:4193

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91551 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/91564] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14147

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91564 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Aug 30 23:19:30 2019 New Revision: 275229 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275229&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91564

[Bug fortran/91564] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14147

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91564 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/91565] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_reshape, at fortran/simplify.c:6707 etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91565 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Aug 30 23:30:35 2019 New Revision: 275230 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275230&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91565

[Bug fortran/91565] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_reshape, at fortran/simplify.c:6707 etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91565 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug go/91617] [10 regression] Many go test case failures after r275026

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91617 --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor --- The cited revision was not to libgo, so my assumption is that there was something wrong with it and there is nothing to change in the Go frontend. Let me know if I'm mistaken. This was also filed as http

[Bug c++/91622] New: Compiler internal error DJGPP GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91622 Bug ID: 91622 Summary: Compiler internal error DJGPP GCC Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/91587] ICE in gfc_resolve_filepos, at fortran/io.c:2913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91587 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat Aug 31 00:32:48 2019 New Revision: 275236 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275236&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91587

[Bug fortran/91587] ICE in gfc_resolve_filepos, at fortran/io.c:2913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91587 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Sat Aug 31 03:27:45 2019 New Revision: 275241 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275241&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-30 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91587

[Bug fortran/91587] ICE in gfc_resolve_filepos, at fortran/io.c:2913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91587 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--

[Bug fortran/91552] ICE with valid array constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91552 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug go/91617] [10 regression] Many go test case failures after r275026

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91617 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Or something is wrong in the go FE langhooks. Anyway, I have no idea how to debug this, the libgo libgo.log doesn't contain anything that would make it clear how to run the tests and even looking at the simpl

<    1   2   3   4