[Bug lto/93166] [10 Regression] ICE in get_info_about_necessary_edges, at ipa-cp.c:4137 since r278893

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166 --- Comment #4 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 47676 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47676&action=edit all-in-one test case

[Bug lto/93166] [10 Regression] ICE in get_info_about_necessary_edges, at ipa-cp.c:4137 since r278893

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93166 --- Comment #5 from fxue at gcc dot gnu.org --- To add a specialized class for tree lattices is a way, but will complicate the code. We can simple remove the assertion. And a one-file test case was made from original files.

[Bug fortran/44960] non-array used as an array, identified as an external function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44960 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/71727] -O3 -mstrict-align produces code which assumes unaligned vector accesses work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71727 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 from Wil

[Bug libfortran/92836] segfault with inquire()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92836 --- Comment #16 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #15) > Did we conclude that this is an expected race condition? > > I run the example comment 14 and it just hangs for me. It's certainly not mandated to work, but I

[Bug ipa/93318] [10 regression] Firefox LTO+FDO ICEs in speculative_call_info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93318 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:118aa5e31ce479bb81a003199b4c6ca0d997c9a2 commit r10-6074-g118aa5e31ce479bb81a003199b4c6ca0d997c9a2 Author: Jan Hubicka Date: Sun Ja

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- Hi Steve, > Index: gcc/fortran/primary.c > === > --- gcc/fortran/primary.c (revision 279052) > +++ gcc/fortran/primary.c (working copy)

[Bug fortran/57711] Accepts non-matching invalid dummy procedure as actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57711 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug fortran/91640] [9 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (contiguous expr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91640 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: |[9 Regression] ICE: |g

[Bug target/93319] -mtls-dialect=gnu2 doesn't work for x32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93319 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-

[Bug tree-optimization/93321] New: Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321 Bug ID: 93321 Summary: Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: compile-time-hog Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/93322] New: [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322 Bug ID: 93322 Summary: [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with -fPIC Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code

[Bug c++/93323] New: Internal Compiler Error in unify at cp/pt.c:22219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93323 Bug ID: 93323 Summary: Internal Compiler Error in unify at cp/pt.c:22219 Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug ipa/93322] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with -fPIC

--- I saw this while I was looking at my testsuite results; I test sometimes with -fPIC. gcc version 10.0.1 20200119 (experimental) [master revision 6a9a10407ef:19bdd6115e4:c7518183b8058b31d10a77bc0e2d392552ffbf0d] (GCC)

[Bug ipa/93322] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- It worked with: gcc version 9.0.0 20181231 (experimental) g:c6579387bdc84adc76fbb0aa04e4942dd21d4ff0 Trying to do a git bisect right now.

[Bug c++/93324] New: [10 Regression] ICE with -Wall on constexpr if

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93324 Bug ID: 93324 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE with -Wall on constexpr if Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c++/93323] Internal Compiler Error in unify at cp/pt.c:22219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93323 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-reduction Status|UNCON

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to kargl from comment #6) > No. I do not do git and have little time/need/interest > in learning. In that case, I hope you don't mind if I take this up. I'm just learning git myself (having semi

[Bug c++/93324] [10 Regression] ICE with -Wall on constexpr if

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93324 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/93325] New: libstdc++ wrongly uses direct clock_gettime syscall on non-glibc, breaks time64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93325 Bug ID: 93325 Summary: libstdc++ wrongly uses direct clock_gettime syscall on non-glibc, breaks time64 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug libstdc++/93325] libstdc++ wrongly uses direct clock_gettime syscall on non-glibc, breaks time64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93325 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/33799] Return value's destructor not executed when a local variable's destructor throws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcfc2227c556f2801a657ce3007374732baa8333 commit r10-6077-gbcfc2227c556f2801a657ce3007374732baa8333 Author: Jason Merrill Date: S

[Bug ipa/93322] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug ipa/93322] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/flatten-1.c ICEs with -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93322 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- size_info->size = 0;

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #7) > (In reply to kargl from comment #6) > > > No. I do not do git and have little time/need/interest > > in learning. > > In that case, I hope you don't

[Bug c++/93320] internal compiler error: in is_base_type, at dwarf2out.c:12987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/93320] internal compiler error: in is_base_type, at dwarf2out.c:12987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- We crash in is_base_type because it gets (gdb) p type $1 = and that is not handled: 12990 gcc_unreachable ();

[Bug c++/93320] internal compiler error: in is_base_type, at dwarf2out.c:12987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320 --- Comment #4 from Mike Redd --- FWIW: My code had a problem, but it would have been much easier to debug if the compile didn't crash. :-) In other words, it is possibly not important to handle "type_pack_expansion" in a meaningful way here-- j

[Bug c++/93324] [10 Regression] ICE with -Wall on constexpr if

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93324 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/93320] internal compiler error: in is_base_type, at dwarf2out.c:12987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93320 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Seems like it started with g:3075affdbcb3232fe549fbeed87bd94114c14758

[Bug c++/93323] Internal Compiler Error in unify at cp/pt.c:22219

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93323 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-reduction | --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---

[Bug tree-optimization/93321] Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I don't think this is a bug. You requested inlining a lot. And that increases the number of basic blocks by a lot because of recursive inlining. I can decrease the stack recusriveness slightly by peeling of

[Bug tree-optimization/93321] Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 47679 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47679&action=edit fully untested patch This patch improves prepare_block_for_update but there might be others.

[Bug tree-optimization/93321] Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note prepare_block_for_update has been this way since 2005 with g:0bca51f080dfff5e943b1f1775d874a73bbc441a

[Bug tree-optimization/93321] Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

Re: [Bug ipa/93318] [10 regression] Firefox LTO+FDO ICEs in speculative_call_info

Ok, I managed to reproduce the crash locally (it was not that easy) At the point of failure the node passes verification and I suppose problem is that the call stmt hash contains indirect call while it is supposed to contain direct call. Edge removal code probably replaces direct edge by indreict

[Bug ipa/93318] [10 regression] Firefox LTO+FDO ICEs in speculative_call_info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93318 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- Ok, I managed to reproduce the crash locally (it was not that easy) At the point of failure the node passes verification and I suppose problem is that the call stmt hash contains indirect call while it is suppo

gcc.gnu.org Mailbox Restioration!

friendly reminder

[Bug tree-optimization/93321] Unlimited recursion in prepare_block_for_update

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93321 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug c++/33799] Return value's destructor not executed when a local variable's destructor throws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33799 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91476] [9/10 Regression] const reference variables sharing the same name in two anonymous namespaces cause a multiple definition error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91476 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/93308] bind(c) subroutine changes lower bound of array argument in caller

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93308 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/85628] Make better use of BFI (BFXIL)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85628 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/93326] New: switch optimisation of multiple jumptables into a lookup

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326 Bug ID: 93326 Summary: switch optimisation of multiple jumptables into a lookup Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/93326] switch optimisation of multiple jumptables into a lookup

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326 --- Comment #1 from felix --- Created attachment 47680 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47680&action=edit Optimised into a lookup table of constants (-O3 -fno-pic)

[Bug tree-optimization/93326] switch optimisation of multiple jumptables into a lookup

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93326 --- Comment #2 from felix --- Created attachment 47681 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47681&action=edit Optimised into a jumptable, then load of an immediate (-O3 -fno-pic)