[Bug lto/91772] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in add_dwarf_attr, at dwarf2out.c:4412 since r259749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91772 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|2019-09-14 0

[Bug ipa/91771] Optimization fails to inline final override.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91771 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Status|

[Bug target/91769] [9/10 regression] wrong code with -O2 on MIPS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91769 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/91767] [10 regression] After r274953, clang-compiled xgcc segfaults during RTL pass: stv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0

[Bug fortran/87797] Enhancement: Warning for potential name clash of variables/intrinsics...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87797 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91774] Assignment from return value of function to reference returned by function occasionally produces wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91774 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- I am seeing ... Input String and Parsed String is output inside [] >((dvo) wji (qbr) (ndo) qbr (kfh) (dvp) pzo (oos) (rmy) xuk xug fiv cks wjj zhn >(wjh) uwa lql kfe (ckk) lqm ckp ooq uwc pzt xul xun fis

[Bug c++/91774] Assignment from return value of function to reference returned by function occasionally produces wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91774 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91774] Assignment from return value of function to reference returned by function occasionally produces wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91774 --- Comment #3 from 이경룡 --- Oops. Sorry for the unclear explanation on the core. Forgive me. the throw statement is not the bug itself but acted as a detector for the bug line 28868 ~ 28925: Definition of Interpreter::Read() line 28901 has sta

[Bug c++/91774] Assignment from return value of function to reference returned by function occasionally produces wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91774 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- I see the issue: ListManager[probe].rchild = ListManager.Alloc(); If you take that, which side of the equals is evaluated first is the problem. Is "ListManager[probe].rchild" or "ListManager.Alloc()

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] New: Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 Bug ID: 91775 Summary: Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- Even if the loop is rewritten as: --cut here-- #define N 1024 int a[N], b[N], c[N]; void foo (void) { int i; for (i = -N; i < 0; i++) a[i+N] = b[i+N] + c[i+N]; } --cut here-- gcc still emits compar

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This is iv selection. You need to look into iv-opts on why it is not choosing the one you want it to choose.

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I dont know/remember if iv-opts takes into account the cost difference of the comparisons for the exit condition. If it does then this becomes a target issue.

[Bug fortran/90329] Incompatibility between gfortran and C lapack calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90329 --- Comment #54 from Tomas Kalibera --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #53) > Backported to 7.x, please test it. Thanks! I tested the default behavior with DPOSV and reference LAPACK, where it worked fine. Also with all of CRAN+BIOC R p

[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 --- Comment #7 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Any news here? It's still marked unconfirmed. Thank you!

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Oh, the special accounting triggers for candidate 6, not for candidate 3. Candidate 6: Incr POS: orig biv IV struct: Type: unsigned int Base: 1024 Step: 4294967295 Biv:

[Bug tree-optimization/91776] New: `-fsplit-paths` generates slower code on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91776 Bug ID: 91776 Summary: `-fsplit-paths` generates slower code on arm Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree

[Bug fortran/87797] Enhancement: Warning for potential name clash of variables/intrinsics...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87797 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5

[Bug tree-optimization/91756] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-3 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91756 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Sep 16 11:58:35 2019 New Revision: 275747 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275747&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-16 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/91756

[Bug tree-optimization/87132] [9 Regression] Gcc miscompiles at -O2 on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87132 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Sep 16 11:58:35 2019 New Revision: 275747 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275747&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-09-16 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/91756

[Bug fortran/91690] Slow IEEE intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91690 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91715] ICE in resolve_fntype, at fortran/resolve.c:16884

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91777] New: No warning for iterator going out of scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91777 Bug ID: 91777 Summary: No warning for iterator going out of scope Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/91513] Non-standard terminology in error message for pointer component assignment in pure procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91513 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/91756] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-3 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91756 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/91778] New: gfortran GCC9 optimizer bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91778 Bug ID: 91778 Summary: gfortran GCC9 optimizer bug Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Ass

[Bug fortran/91649] ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91777] No warning for iterator going out of scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91777 --- Comment #1 from Konstantin Kharlamov --- FTR, on IRC was referenced the following paper that may be interesting for implementors https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/docs/Lifetime.pdf

[Bug fortran/91778] gfortran GCC9 optimizer bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91778 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Are you using c bindings to bind to fftw functions?

[Bug fortran/91778] gfortran GCC9 optimizer bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91778 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91778] gfortran GCC9 optimizer bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91778 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2019-09-16 00:00:00 | CC|

[Bug fortran/91513] Non-standard terminology in error message for pointer component assignment in pure procedure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91513 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug lto/91772] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in add_dwarf_attr, at dwarf2out.c:4412 since r259749

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91772 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Created attachment 46886 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46886&action=edit Test-case

[Bug fortran/91778] gfortran GCC9 optimizer bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91778 Mark Wieczorek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/88784] Middle end is missing some optimizations about unsigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784 --- Comment #29 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Mon Sep 16 14:22:16 2019 New Revision: 275749 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275749&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Fix PR88784, middle end is missing some optimizations about unsigned 201

[Bug middle-end/88784] Middle end is missing some optimizations about unsigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88784 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/91779] New: [9 regression] Unbalanced stack manipulation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91779 Bug ID: 91779 Summary: [9 regression] Unbalanced stack manipulation Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal Priori

[Bug target/91779] Unbalanced stack manipulation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91779 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9 regression] Unbalanced |Unbalanced stack |sta

[Bug c++/91780] New: Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91780 Bug ID: 91780 Summary: Discrepancy between gcc 7.4, through 9.2, compared to clang. Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug tree-optimization/91776] `-fsplit-paths` generates slower code on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91776 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 from Wil

Re: [Bug driver/81358] libatomic not automatically linked with C11 code

I should also note the testsuite point I mentioned in the BoF, and related points about building target libraries, which mean this is more complicated than just the driver specs change: There is testsuite logic (see gcc/testsuite/lib/atomic-dg.exp) to locate libatomic for build-tree testing and

[Bug driver/81358] libatomic not automatically linked with C11 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358 --- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I should also note the testsuite point I mentioned in the BoF, and related points about building target libraries, which mean this is more complicated than just the driver specs change: Th

[Bug go/91781] New: [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91781 Bug ID: 91781 Summary: [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect" Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: g

[Bug target/91719] gcc compiles seq_cst store on x86-64 differently from clang/icc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91719 --- Comment #11 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Mon Sep 16 18:37:28 2019 New Revision: 275754 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=275754&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/91719 * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_USE_

[Bug fortran/91782] New: Accepts invalid array constructor with character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91782 Bug ID: 91782 Summary: Accepts invalid array constructor with character parameter Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug fortran/91782] Accepts invalid array constructor with character parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91782 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid --- Comment #1 from G. St

[Bug fortran/91783] New: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver, at fortran/dependency.c:2111

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783 Bug ID: 91783 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver, at fortran/dependency.c:2111 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91784] New: ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.c:2208

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91784 Bug ID: 91784 Summary: ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.c:2208 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: f

[Bug fortran/91785] New: ICE in check_assumed_size_reference, at fortran/resolve.c:1601

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91785 Bug ID: 91785 Summary: ICE in check_assumed_size_reference, at fortran/resolve.c:1601 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91785] ICE in check_assumed_size_reference, at fortran/resolve.c:1601

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91785 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #1 from G

[Bug driver/81358] libatomic not automatically linked with C11 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81358 --- Comment #10 from Andreas Schwab --- All these failure modes can already be observed on riscv-linux, where -pthread implies -latomic.

[Bug fortran/91784] ICE in gfc_real2complex, at fortran/arith.c:2208

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91784 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug go/91781] [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91781 --- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Does this work at SVN revision r275611?

[Bug go/91781] [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91781 --- Comment #2 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Oh, never mind, this is a new test in r275691, this code has probably never worked on ppc64be.

[Bug go/91781] [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91781 --- Comment #3 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Sorry, I missed this was a new test case. And no, it still doesn't work with current trunk.

[Bug go/91781] [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91781 --- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab --- For reflect to work there needs to be support for go closures in libffi.

[Bug preprocessor/49973] Column numbers count multibyte characters as multiple columns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49973 --- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Sun, 15 Sep 2019, lhyatt at gmail dot com wrote: > I feel like the most portable solution is just to use directly the necessary > code (from glibc or gnulib or from scratch or wherever)

[Bug libstdc++/91786] New: Clang 8.0.1 can't compile the header on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91786 Bug ID: 91786 Summary: Clang 8.0.1 can't compile the header on Windows Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/91787] New: an elaborated-type-specifier only takes plain "enum", gcc accept ill-formed, while it should not.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91787 Bug ID: 91787 Summary: an elaborated-type-specifier only takes plain "enum", gcc accept ill-formed, while it should not. Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/81042] Too many constexpr iterations on unreachable loop.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81042 Ralph Tandetzky changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ralph.tandetzky at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/91777] No warning for iterator going out of scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91777 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/78113] std::variant and std::visit's current implementations do not get optimized out (compared to "recursive visitation")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78113 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- (looking at the first testcase) There are 2 things. One is the implementation strategy in libstdc++ vs boost vs others (I don't know what is best, it probably depends on the application). The other one is that

[Bug libstdc++/91788] New: std::variant index +1-1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91788 Bug ID: 91788 Summary: std::variant index +1-1 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/91269] sparc64-gcc fails to build glibc (-fcall-used-g6) on niagara4: Assembler messages: Error: Illegal operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91269 --- Comment #9 from Sergei Trofimovich --- Still happens on gcc version 10.0.0 20190916 (experimental) (GCC) How can I peek at the stage where registers are assigned to std instruction? I suspect it needs special annotation WRT paired FPU

[Bug libstdc++/91788] std::variant index +1-1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91788 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- Internally, it may also be possible to avoid calling index() so often and work with the raw _M_index more often.

[Bug tree-optimization/91758] Clang fails to pass validation after r261089

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91758 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug target/91766] -fvisibility=hidden during -fpic still uses GOT indirection on arm64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91766 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||visibility CC|

[Bug c++/55578] Disabling warnings inside macro definition doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/55578] Disabling warnings inside macro definition doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55578 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/91789] New: Value ranges determined from comparisons not used transitively

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91789 Bug ID: 91789 Summary: Value ranges determined from comparisons not used transitively Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/45977] "warning: 'i' initialized and declared 'extern'" could use a separate warning flag controlling it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45977 --- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager --- This bug provoked this StackOverflow question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57957168/how-do-i-disable-a-gcc-warning-which-has-no-command-line-switch

[Bug tree-optimization/91789] Value ranges determined from comparisons not used transitively

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91789 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/91790] New: ICE: Segmentation fault (in vr_values::vrp_visit_assignment_or_call), or ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 2 follows the use)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91790 Bug ID: 91790 Summary: ICE: Segmentation fault (in vr_values::vrp_visit_assignment_or_call), or ICE: verify_ssa failed (error: definition in block 2 follows the use

[Bug c++/91791] New: ICE when throwing exception in a ternary expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91791 Bug ID: 91791 Summary: ICE when throwing exception in a ternary expression Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug tree-optimization/91789] Value ranges determined from comparisons not used transitively

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91789 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- We do manage if you swap the order of the first 2 comparisons, because this way we don't need to remember symbolic ranges: a<0 yields a range [0,inf] for a, b

[Bug go/91781] [10 regression] r275691 breaks go test "reflect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91781 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/91783] [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver, at fortran/dependency.c:2111

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---