[Bug c++/101287] New: Implicite template specialization redefines member function but compiles

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101287 Bug ID: 101287 Summary: Implicite template specialization redefines member function but compiles Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/101287] Implicite template specialization redefines member function but compiles

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101287 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The actual code is required though, as https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs says: template struct C { void f() { T x; } void g() = delete; }; C c; // OK, definition of C​::​f is not instantia

[Bug target/101286] [12 Regression] ICE: in ix86_expand_vector_move, at config/i386/i386-expand.c:574 with -mavx2 and __int128 vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101286 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-07-01 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/101287] Implicit template specialization redefines member function but compiles

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101287 --- Comment #2 from Eligor Kadaf --- Agree, and the link was incorrect, so there is a correct one: https://godbolt.org/z/zEz8c7abM

[Bug middle-end/101252] Optimize (b ? i % C0 : i % C1) into i & (b ? C0-1 : C1-1) for power of 2 C0 and C1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101252 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/101179] y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||antoshkka at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/101251] Optimize i % (b ? C0 : C1) into i & (b ? C0-1 : C1-1) for power of 2 C0 and C1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101251 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/101179] y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 101251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/101288] New: Invalid instantiated redeclaration considered valid by gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101288 Bug ID: 101288 Summary: Invalid instantiated redeclaration considered valid by gcc Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/101179] y % (x ? 16 : 4) and y % (4 << (2 * (bool)x)) produce different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101179 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- Here is one more function which should be the same: int f0(int y) { const bool x = y % 100 == 0; return (y & ((4 << (x * 2)) - 1)) != 0; }

[Bug target/101286] [12 Regression] ICE: in ix86_expand_vector_move, at config/i386/i386-expand.c:574 with -mavx2 and __int128 vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101286 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/101279] Function attributes often block inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101279 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- See also https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2009-02/msg00408.html which was a way forward for wrapv but there was not much work on it really since that year. The work on this has a huge impact to the IR real

[Bug target/101177] sh3: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177 Harold Gutch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc_bugzilla at foobar dot franken

[Bug target/101177] sh3: internal compiler error: Illegal instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101177 --- Comment #2 from Harold Gutch --- Created attachment 51098 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51098&action=edit revert the change of condition

[Bug c/101289] New: bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Bug ID: 101289 Summary: bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/101290] New: ICE with -O1 on valid code: in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:5976

Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 12.0.0 20210701 (experimental) [master revision :b1f5e3e73:a688c284dd3848b6c4ea553035f0f9769fb4fbc9] (GCC) $ cat mutant.c typedef *a; typedef struct { struct { struct { struct { struct { struct { struct

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/101279] Function attributes often block inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101279 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers --- I did some more reading of http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/n4878.pdf and it would seem that you are not even guaranteed a deterministic ordering of the application of binary_op on th

[Bug c/97548] bogus -Wvla-parameter on a bound expression involving a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97548 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Known to fail|

[Bug c/101289] bogus -Wvla-paramater warning when using const for vla param

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101289 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Known to fail|

[Bug target/101275] [RISCV] Document the machine constraint 'S' and make it non-internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101275 Kito Cheng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kito at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fro

[Bug tree-optimization/92860] [9/10/11/12 regression] Global flags affected by -O settings are clobbered by optimize attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92860 --- Comment #50 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #49) > Created attachment 51095 [details] > C source code > > Command line is > > /home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/ -g -O3 > -march

[Bug debug/101283] Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- It might make sense to provide targets a means to opt-out of CTF/BTF support and thus diagnose -gctf as unsupported on them.

[Bug c/101285] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in c_safe_arg_type_equiv_p, at c/c-typeck.c:5830

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101285 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.5 Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/92860] [9/10/11/12 regression] Global flags affected by -O settings are clobbered by optimize attribute

rking/./gcc/specs COLLECT_GCC=/home/dcb/gcc/working/./gcc/xgcc Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../trunk.git/configure --prefix=/home/dcb/gcc/results.20210701 --disable-multilib --disable-werror --with-pkgversion=91c771ec8a3b6497 --enable-checking=df,extra,fold,rtl,yes --enabl e-languages=c,

[Bug middle-end/101290] ICE with -O1 on valid code: in maybe_canonicalize_mem_ref_addr, at gimple-fold.c:5976

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101290 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Component|tre

[Bug tree-optimization/101280] [12 Regression] TSVC s231 slower with -Ofast -march=znver1 since r12-1836-g0ad9d88a3d7170b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa commit r12-1973-gc4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/101173] [9/10/11 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa commit r12-1973-gc4804ff24401733e3b470a49b8a6c9306e6cfcfa Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/101256] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since r12-1841-g9fe9c45ae33a2df7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101256 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- I managed reducing a test-case: $ cat driver.cpp #include #include template const T& max(const T& a, const T& b) { return (a < b) ? b : a; } signed char var_5 = -128; unsigned int var_11 = 21444792

<    1   2