[Bug fortran/95366] [10/11 Regression] TYPE IS(character(*)) no longer matches since r10-3605-gf61e54e59cda5a2e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95366 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug libfortran/95313] Possible overflow in itoa_buf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95313 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/95276] [10/11 Regression] Amusing stringpop-overflow message building libgfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95276 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10) > The libgfortran bug is now PR 95313 . Actually, the warning is a false positive, for our code. We never call write_z with an excessive length. So, what's lef

[Bug libfortran/95313] Possible overflow in itoa_buf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95313 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0cfc34ad1293a5e19f1dc67c461c58d99222ac9d commit r11-1290-g0cfc34ad1293a5e19f1dc67c461c58d99222ac9d Author: Thomas Koenig Date:

[Bug libfortran/95313] Possible overflow in itoa_buf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95313 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/95647] operator(.eq.) and operator(==) treated differently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- If we treat .eq. and == differently, that is an indication of a bug in the compiler itself.

[Bug target/95661] Code built with -m32 uses SSE2 instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95661 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug target/95661] Code built with -m32 uses SSE2 instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95661 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/95640] gfortran ieee_selected_real_kind returns 10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #13) > With a bit of work, someone could do > > Index: gcc/fortran/trans-types.c > === > --- gcc/fortran

[Bug target/95661] Code built with -m32 uses SSE2 instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95661 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/95663] New: static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 Bug ID: 95663 Summary: static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/87515] "no return statement in function returning non-void" miscompiles with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87515 ipelupes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ipelupes at hotmail dot com --- Comment #4 fr

[Bug c++/87515] "no return statement in function returning non-void" miscompiles with optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87515 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/95661] Code built with -m32 uses SSE2 instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95661 --- Comment #4 from Matt Emmerton --- Thank you everyone. This fully explains why we were still getting SSE in 32-bit mode.

[Bug ada/95664] New: generic instantiation fails to detect abstract equality, builds with gcc-9 and fails to link with gcc-10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95664 Bug ID: 95664 Summary: generic instantiation fails to detect abstract equality, builds with gcc-9 and fails to link with gcc-10 Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0

[Bug c++/95665] New: memory access error on passing additional parameters to Int128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95665 Bug ID: 95665 Summary: memory access error on passing additional parameters to Int128 Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/95665] memory access error on passing additional parameters in addition to Int128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95665 --- Comment #1 from Elmar Stellnberger --- compile and start with ./runit test_int128.cpp

[Bug c++/93467] [concepts] getting "type constraint differs in template redeclaration" error after friend declaration in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93467 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:652ec7e8c046b239c42dedd295acf1815ed2b93a commit r10-8288-g652ec7e8c046b239c42dedd295acf1815ed2b93a Author: Patrick Palka D

[Bug c++/93467] [concepts] getting "type constraint differs in template redeclaration" error after friend declaration in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93467 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug ada/95664] generic instantiation fails to detect abstract equality, builds with gcc-9 and fails to link with gcc-10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95664 Ludovic Brenta changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ludo...@ludovic-brenta.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/95647] operator(.eq.) and operator(==) treated differently

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 08:11:22AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95647 > > --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- > If we treat .eq. and == differently

[Bug fortran/95640] gfortran ieee_selected_real_kind returns 10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640 --- Comment #18 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 10:14:43AM +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95640 > > --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski --- > (In reply to Steve Kargl from com

[Bug fortran/27318] gfortran should warn if a interface does not match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27318 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/95353] [10 Regression] spurious -Wstringop-overflow writing to a trailing array plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95353 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:678178cbf3642f272459b2be675cc518b3121d09 commit r11-1292-g678178cbf3642f272459b2be675cc518b3121d09 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Sat

[Bug c++/95440] [coroutines] ICE with static members in promise_type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95440 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b88498204521731f46b439b33f936009fedfdf35 commit r10-8289-gb88498204521731f46b439b33f936009fedfdf35 Author: Iain Sandoe Dat

[Bug c/95666] New: gcc 9.3.0 generates incorrect code with -O3 on HP-UX IA64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95666 Bug ID: 95666 Summary: gcc 9.3.0 generates incorrect code with -O3 on HP-UX IA64 Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug target/95400] -march=native and -march=icelake-client produce different results on icelake client

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95400 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.5 Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/95667] New: warning for memset writing across multiple members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667 Bug ID: 95667 Summary: warning for memset writing across multiple members Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/95667] [11 Regression] unintended warning for memset writing across multiple members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95667 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/95638] [10/11 Regression] Legit-looking code doesn't work with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95638 --- Comment #6 from bin cheng --- We call graphds_scc twice to break alias dependence, with alias dependence edges skipped in the second call. The code (both before and after r10-7184-ge4e9a59105a81cdd6c1328b0a5ed9fe4cc82840e) tries to rectify p

[Bug ada/95664] generic instantiation fails to detect abstract equality, builds with gcc-9 and fails to link with gcc-10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95664 Jean-Pierre Rosen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rosen at adalog dot fr --- Comment #