Important - XYO Strategy Latest Update for 2021

NEW Update for the XYO Strategy for January 2021. Hiya, I hope you don't mind but I saw that you were involved in with XYO and the Coin App. I wanted to let you know that since COIN BOSS is now available to everyone I designed a strategy which helps people reach their targets in their journey qu

[Bug middle-end/98702] linker failure with a very simple testing case for gcc10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98702 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/96271] Failure to optimize memcmp of doubles to avoid going through memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b673e7547fb95d1f0d5cd17ae9e3874742cade66 commit r11-6747-gb673e7547fb95d1f0d5cd17ae9e3874742cade66 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Sa

[Bug tree-optimization/96669] Failure to optimize shift by variable+and by 1 to test for 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96669 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e2559c3945a09521ffe4f59669bc4d902ae77adb commit r11-6748-ge2559c3945a09521ffe4f59669bc4d902ae77adb Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Sa

[Bug tree-optimization/96669] Failure to optimize shift by variable+and by 1 to test for 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96669 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 96669, which changed state. Bug 96669 Summary: Failure to optimize shift by variable+and by 1 to test for 0 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96669 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/96271] Failure to optimize memcmp of doubles to avoid going through memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed. Probably the last of these missed-optimization bugfixes from me for GCC 11, tomorrow starts stage4 and only regression bugfixes will be allowed.

[Bug c++/98704] New: coroutine_handle::done() == false after promise's unhandled_exception() has thrown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98704 Bug ID: 98704 Summary: coroutine_handle::done() == false after promise's unhandled_exception() has thrown Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug tree-optimization/95731] Failure to optimize a >= 0 && b >= 0 to (a | b) >= 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95731 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 95731, which changed state. Bug 95731 Summary: Failure to optimize a >= 0 && b >= 0 to (a | b) >= 0 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95731 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/96271] Failure to optimize memcmp of doubles to avoid going through memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96271 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/96685] Failure to optimize not+sub to add+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96685 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 96685, which changed state. Bug 96685 Summary: Failure to optimize not+sub to add+not https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96685 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 96688, which changed state. Bug 96688 Summary: Failure to optimize shift-right/add+bitwise not of constant to avoid bitwise not https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/96688] Failure to optimize shift-right/add+bitwise not of constant to avoid bitwise not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96688 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/96696] Failure to optimize div+mul to mod+sub

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96696 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/95527] Failure to optimize __builtin_ffs == 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95527 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/98705] New: [11 Regression] bootstrap broken on x86_64-linux-gnu with --enable-cet and multilibs enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98705 Bug ID: 98705 Summary: [11 Regression] bootstrap broken on x86_64-linux-gnu with --enable-cet and multilibs enabled Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/98705] [11 Regression] bootstrap broken on x86_64-linux-gnu with --enable-cet and multilibs enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98705 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c/46115] Feature request: anonymous functions (complementing anon aggregates)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46115 Martin Uecker changed: What|Removed |Added CC||muecker at gwdg dot de --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug fortran/93524] [ISO C Binding][F2018] CFI_allocate – elem_size mishandled + sm wrongly set?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #1) > Also related to this issue: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055581.html: A patch for this issue was submitted at https://gcc.gnu.org/piper

[Bug fortran/93524] [ISO C Binding][F2018] CFI_allocate – elem_size mishandled + sm wrongly set?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/97787] [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > I guess it is because -mxgot is supposed to be handled by the assembler? > I see > > %{mgp32} %{mgp64} %{march=*} %{mxgot:-xgot} \ > > in ASM_SPEC. I guess th

[Bug target/97787] [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > > Can you try using -mxgot -Wa,-xgot or -mxgot -Xassembler -xgot at > > compile time? > > I'm trying, though my gut fe

[Bug target/97787] [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 --- Comment #11 from Xi Ruoyao --- In my case the error message is: /usr/bin/ld: js.ltrans2.ltrans.o: .symtab local symbol at index 1411 (>= sh_info of 404) /usr/bin/ld: js.ltrans2.ltrans.o: error adding symbols: bad value I've uploaded the "g

[Bug target/97787] [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 --- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao --- "readelf -s js.ltrans2.ltrans.o" gives a strange unnamed UND symbol: 1411: 0 SECTION LOCAL DEFAULT UND I'm not sure what's happening...

[Bug jit/98586] libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586 --- Comment #6 from Keith Marshall --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #5) > Should be fixed by the above commit. I applied your patch, and disabled (by changing "#ifdef _WIN32" to "#if 0") the effect of my own, so that the invalid assum

[Bug target/98705] [11 Regression] bootstrap broken on x86_64-linux-gnu with --enable-cet and multilibs enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98705 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/70454] --with-arch=native isn't applied to 32-bit x86 target library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70454 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added CC||doko at debian dot org --- Comment #9 f

[Bug c++/98706] New: spurious unused-set-but-not-used when a parameter pack is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98706 Bug ID: 98706 Summary: spurious unused-set-but-not-used when a parameter pack is empty Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/98549] [11 Regression] ICE in rs6000_emit_le_vsx_store, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:9938 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > The warning often warns on dead code. > But even if the warning is right, that doesn't make it ice-on-invalid-code. > The code may have UB at runtime, but th

[Bug target/98549] [11 Regression] ICE in rs6000_emit_le_vsx_store, at config/rs6000/rs6000.c:9938 on powerpc64le-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98549 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- (And that new test case is full of obvious invalid code as well, fwiw.)

[Bug fortran/88124] Wrong results with procedure in seperate file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88124 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING CC|

[Bug target/95095] Feature request: support -fno-unique-section-names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Can't we use ".text%name" for -ffunction-sections, like we did originally, in 1996? See cf4403481dd6. This does not conflict with other section names, and does not have all the problems you get from do

[Bug target/95095] Feature request: support -fno-unique-section-names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95095 --- Comment #3 from Fangrui Song --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > Can't we use ".text%name" for -ffunction-sections, like we did originally, > in 1996? See cf4403481dd6. This does not conflict with other section > names, a

[Bug c++/98660] -Wold-style-cast should not warn on casts that look like (decltype(x))(x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98660 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/98660] -Wold-style-cast should not warn on casts that look like (decltype(x))(x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98660 --- Comment #4 from Gašper Ažman --- @Eric Gallager: yes, the #pragma solution is what I currently use. It is entirely unsatisfactory, for the reasons described in my original request. The long-term usefulness of warnings is directly proportiona

[Bug c++/98660] -Wold-style-cast should not warn on casts that look like (decltype(x))(x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98660 --- Comment #5 from Gašper Ažman --- s/endif/pragma GCC diagnostic pop

[Bug c/98621] ICE: x from g referenced in f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98621 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #11 from Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu --- Thanks! This is how I compiled: gfortran FiberAnalysis.f -finit-real=nan -fcheck=all -ffpe-trap=zero,invalid -o FiberAnalysis_v2 This what I get after running (the answers are correct): P

[Bug c++/98707] New: ICE using std::string in a module partition

ociated preprocessed files gcc version: gcc version 11.0.0 20210116 (experimental) target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu build options: -disable-multilib --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran,lto,objc --no-create --no-recursion g++ produces an internal compiler error when combining strings and module partition

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #12 from Steve Kargl --- On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 11:20:20PM +, Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu wrote: > > Do you've any suggestions for how to trace the source > of error so I can fix the code? > Not really. I suppose old fashi

[Bug fortran/98701] I compiled a program with gfortran on Mac (Big Sur, version 11.1) and g77 on Windows 10. I get two very different results for identical input files with the results from the one c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98701 --- Comment #13 from Bahram.shahrooz at uc dot edu --- Thank you for your help. I really appreciate your time.

[Bug c++/98646] [11 Regression] A static_cast confuses -Wnonnull, causing false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- -Wnonnull still is in the front end (in addition to the middle end). This instance is issued by check_nonnull_arg in c-family/c-common.c, but other similar instances are issued from tree-ssa-ccp.c. Rather th

[Bug debug/98708] New: [11 Regression] cxx11-ios_failure-lt.s:36733: Error: file number less than one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98708 Bug ID: 98708 Summary: [11 Regression] cxx11-ios_failure-lt.s:36733: Error: file number less than one Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug debug/98708] [11 Regression] cxx11-ios_failure-lt.s:36733: Error: file number less than one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98708 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/98709] New: gcc optimizes bitwise operations, but doesn't optimize logical ones

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98709 Bug ID: 98709 Summary: gcc optimizes bitwise operations, but doesn't optimize logical ones Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/98710] New: missing optimization (x | c) & ~(y | c) -> x & ~(y | c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98710 Bug ID: 98710 Summary: missing optimization (x | c) & ~(y | c) -> x & ~(y | c) Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug debug/98708] [11 Regression] cxx11-ios_failure-lt.s:36733: Error: file number less than one by r11-6755

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98708 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11 Regression] |[11 Regression] |cxx11-ios_f

[Bug debug/98708] [11 Regression] cxx11-ios_failure-lt.s:36733: Error: file number less than one by r11-6755

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98708 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- The asse