[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Known to fail|

[Bug c++/95844] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_warn_deprecated_use)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3ee94724686b82556c07b4d33821ae973eb9aba commit r11-3958-gf3ee94724686b82556c07b4d33821ae973eb9aba Author: Jason Merrill Date: Th

[Bug testsuite/97426] [11 regression] new test case gcc.dg/ipa/modref-1.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- g:10744da3452dac48cfa54d4480c269aac56421fa, r11-3909 The above partly fixes this but leaves at least one error: make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-ssa.exp=gcc.dg/tree-ssa/modref-4.c" FAIL: gcc

[Bug c++/95844] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_warn_deprecated_use)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80635] [8/9/10/11 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 Chris Uzdavinis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/97419] crash in decl_as_string(TFF_DECL_SPECIFIERS | TFF_CHASE_TYPEDEF) from plugin using std::declval()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419 --- Comment #6 from Steve Fink --- The crash still happens with gcc 10.2.0.

[Bug c++/79686] Variadic template expansion into concept with leading parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

[Bug c++/66834] [concepts] variadic concepts and DR 1430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anthony.ajw at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 79686, which changed state. Bug 79686 Summary: Variadic template expansion into concept with leading parameters https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/97402] Value of dependent partial-concept-id is not usable in a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97402 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/97450] New: [concepts] Bogus errors during constraint normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97450 Bug ID: 97450 Summary: [concepts] Bogus errors during constraint normalization Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections...

[Bug target/18469] configure incorrectly defines gid_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/97398] Enhancement request: Warning when multiply assigning to same struct field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug bootstrap/97451] New: [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 Bug ID: 97451 Summary: [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/18469] configure incorrectly defines gid_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #6 from Jonathan W

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-10-15 3:58 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections... It looks like the .s file name is in object: dave@atlas:~/

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 f

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-10-15 4:18 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Adde

[Bug bootstrap/97451] [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- The problem is triggered by missing config/bootstrap-debug.mk. But cccS9GKD.s is is odd.

[Bug other/97417] RISC-V Unnecessary andi instruction when loading volatile bool

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org Statu

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Those are debug sections. So contrib/compare-debug should be stripping them. Or is this non-debug bootstrap where either both stage2 and stage3 are built with -g or none of them?

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-10-15 4:35 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 > > --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Those are debug sections. So contrib/c

[Bug bootstrap/97451] [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug c++/95942] [11 regression] offsetof on an array: error: 'e' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95942 Sergei Trofimovich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug c++/96241] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in verify_ctor_sanity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard --- I don't understand why the .debug sections are compared in this case. But if they are then the diff comes from this gas issue: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26740 Even though unused gas -

[Bug fortran/97039] -fbounds-check misses violation with slice of array but not an element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039 --- Comment #2 from Anthony M de Beus --- Clarification for anyone confused, "correct" results by a fortran compiler with bounds-checking enabled would include finding/checking incorrect bounds in (deliberately) incorrect fortran code given in th

[Bug c++/95675] [8/9/10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in build_over_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Comment 4 test started with r240845.

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #12 from John David Anglin --- Created attachment 49382 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49382&action=edit .s file generated with stage3 compiler File 1 position looks similar to the example in binutils/26740.

[Bug c++/97358] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE while building firefox since r8-2720

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358 Richard Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 --- Comment #5 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > I have a fix that, with -mavx512f generates just > > .L3: > vmovupd (%rcx,%rax), %zmm0 > vpermpd (%rsi,%rax), %zmm1, %zmm2 > vpermpd %zmm0,

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 --- Comment #6 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > > while the lack of cross-lane shuffles in AVX2 requires a > > .L3: > vmovupd (%rsi,%rax), %xmm5 > vmovupd 32(%rsi,%rax), %xmm6 > vinsertf1

[Bug c++/97452] New: [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume() when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452 Bug ID: 97452 Summary: [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume() when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single statement Product: gcc Version: un

[Bug c++/93107] unable to deduce initializer_list from function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93107 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/97453] New: Implement CWG issue 2303

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97453 Bug ID: 97453 Summary: Implement CWG issue 2303 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: u

How to fix GCC Upgrade issues(which always disappeared by add some trace prints)?

Hello GCC experts, Anyone can guide us to fix this issue on GCC v9.3? Our products used ARM64 target cross-compile GCC v6.5 before. In recent weeks, we upgrade it to GCC v9.3 by company request. However, we met some strange problems, such as 1. Linux eMMC dr

[Bug sanitizer/96307] [10/11 Regression] ICE in sanopt on riscv64 since r11-2283-g2ca1b6d009b194286c3ec91f9c51cc6b0a475458

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307 Kito Cheng changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P3 --- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng --- Patc

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug bootstrap/97451] [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:429ad0bb0d3dc77e44f95620341da4938d49168e commit r11-3966-g429ad0bb0d3dc77e44f95620341da4938d49168e Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 97428, which changed state. Bug 97428 Summary: -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c/97398] Enhancement request: Warning when multiply assigning to same struct field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398 --- Comment #3 from Ulrich Windl --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > would this go under one of the existing -Wunused flags, or a new one? I think it's a case of being an unused value set to a variable in general, but more specific

[Bug c++/97452] [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume() when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

<    1   2