[Bug tree-optimization/102494] Failure to optimize vector reduction properly especially when using OpenMP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102494 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 28 Sep 2021, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102494 > > --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu --- > After supporting v4hi reduce, gimple seems

[Bug tree-optimization/102512] New: Redudant max/min operation for vector reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512 Bug ID: 102512 Summary: Redudant max/min operation for vector reduction Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/102500] [12 regression] Missing include for gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500 --- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus --- While the patch outputs proper warnings, it was deemed to be aggressive by default. Thus, the default value has been downgraded to print by commit Fortran: Improve -Wmissing-include-dirs warnings [PR555

[Bug tree-optimization/102511] [12 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code for -O3: first element of the array is skipped after r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Assignee|unassigned at gc

[Bug tree-optimization/102512] Redundant max/min operation before vector reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/102511] [12 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code for -O3: first element of the array is skipped after r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6) > Describing the process to get here makes it abundantly clear that we need to > improve the process of debugging this. We need a way to turn on the solver > deb

[Bug fortran/102500] [12 regression] Missing include for gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce450af5087b95001b003184b8ecc2c9bbf65378 commit r12-3912-gce450af5087b95001b003184b8ecc2c9bbf65378 Author: Tobias Burnus Date: T

[Bug c/20422] Mismatch in pointer indirection level should give specialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20422 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/30949] "incompatible pointer type" warning does not point to declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30949 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pbijdens at storagelabs dot com --- Comm

[Bug c++/30060] Error/warning on invalid code (duplicate identifier for enum/class) should be more specific

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30060 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- clang gives a much better diagnostic for sure: :10:20: error: must use 'class' tag to refer to type 'foo' in this scope foo *a=new foo; ^ class :2:9: note: class

[Bug middle-end/95550] [OpenACC] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6075

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95550 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/93554] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6035 since r6-4364-ge4834818d22f5c66

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93554 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #7

[Bug target/102498] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Long double constant and non-default rounding mode on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498 --- Comment #7 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > Here is a testcase which shows it can be reproduced all the back to GCC > 4.1.2 even: [...] > f(0); > } OK, with "return" before "f(0);".

[Bug c/21438] Warning about division by zero depends on lexical form

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21438 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug middle-end/20061] Certain flags generate warnings when they should not.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20061 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0 Status|NEW

[Bug c++/102496] [11/12 regression] extern __thread and thread_local declaration in function scope produces a non-TLS reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug fortran/102500] [12 regression] Missing include for gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug testsuite/102501] [12 regression] several test case failures after r12-3876

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102501 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Component|other

[Bug tree-optimization/102505] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in verify_sra_access_forest with 16 byte aligned field and virtual inheritance

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102505 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug testsuite/102509] [12 regression] new test case gcc.c-torture/compile/attr-complex-method.c is unresolved after r12-3901

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102509 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biene

[Bug c/37502] no warning for always-false/true conditions due to too small bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37502 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2008-09-13 12:37:20 |2021-9-28 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin

[Bug regression/102513] New: False positive -Wstringop-overflow= or -Warray-bounds warning with recursive function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513 Bug ID: 102513 Summary: False positive -Wstringop-overflow= or -Warray-bounds warning with recursive function Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Ke

[Bug target/102230] ICE in classify_argument, at config/i386/i386.c:2474

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102230 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eea10afef71e1947e3a3fde2a44839054ab91967 commit r12-3914-geea10afef71e1947e3a3fde2a44839054ab91967 Author: Hongyu Wang Date: Thu J

[Bug c/37519] confusing error message about attribute section name type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37519 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 Resolution|---

[Bug c/32023] Message for lvalues could be improved if the cast was used as a lvalue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32023 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2008-11-14 23:41:14 |2021-9-28 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pi

[Bug fortran/102510] Function call has unnecessary stride check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/95550] [OpenACC] ICE in expand_oacc_for, at omp-expand.c:6075

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95550 --- Comment #2 from Yuri Gribov --- The promised repro: SUBROUTINE FOO() INTEGER :: I COMPLEX(8), ALLOCATABLE :: GWORK(:) ALLOCATE(GWORK(512)) !$ACC PARALLEL LOOP PRIVA

[Bug c++/102514] New: The allocation function shall not be called when existing an erroneous expression in noptr-new-declarator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102514 Bug ID: 102514 Summary: The allocation function shall not be called when existing an erroneous expression in noptr-new-declarator Product: gcc Version: 12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/102512] Redundant max/min operation before vector reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/102512] Redundant max/min operation before vector reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102512 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > max_9 = *p_8(D); > _10 = {max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9, max_9}; > vect__4.7_13 = MEM [(short int *)p_8(D)]; > vect_max_11.8_14 = MA

[Bug middle-end/48267] incorrect signed overflow warning when a pointer cannot possibly overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48267 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/102511] [12 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code for -O3: first element of the array is skipped after r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fb8b72ebb5b0bf40f7dfef9154c42320ce46f2a7 commit r12-3916-gfb8b72ebb5b0bf40f7dfef9154c42320ce46f2a7 Author: Aldy Hernandez Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/102511] [12 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code for -O3: first element of the array is skipped after r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug c++/49510] bitshift warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49510 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/37864] warning from fold looks at macro expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37864 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-05-14 00:00:00 |2021-9-28 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin

[Bug tree-optimization/55616] bogus warning about undefined overflow after overflow check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55616 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC 8+ does not warn any more. I Have not checked why yet.

[Bug middle-end/102492] [12 Regression] ICE in scan_sharing_clauses, at omp-low.c:1205

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102492 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f07769057c45ec9e751ab1c23e0fe4750102840 commit r12-3917-g4f07769057c45ec9e751ab1c23e0fe4750102840 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: T

[Bug c++/57883] Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.2.0, 12.0 Known to fail|

[Bug middle-end/64272] useless "called from here" for inline failed error/warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64272 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/101641] Bogus redundant store removal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101641 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- Wow, and this time it's even combine coming into play! (insn 10 9 11 2 (set (reg/v:DI 82 [ xy ]) (mem/j:DI (reg/v/f:DI 86 [ pu ]) [2 pu_6(D)->y+0 S8 A64])) "t.i":12:8 76 {*movdi_internal} (nil

[Bug c/17896] The expression (a>0 & b>0) should give clearer warning message (-Wparentheses)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17896 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|patch

[Bug tree-optimization/100112] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -O3, -Os (vs. -O1, -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b8b1522e04adc20980f396571be1929a32d148a commit r12-3918-g5b8b1522e04adc20980f396571be1929a32d148a Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug c++/70301] missing diagnostic on taking the address of a temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70301 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-03-19 00:00:00 |2021-9-28 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pin

[Bug tree-optimization/100112] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -O3, -Os (vs. -O1, -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100112 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/62137] Poor error recovery when parsing for-loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62137 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-08-14 00:00:00 |2021-9-28 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin

[Bug tree-optimization/88854] redundant store after load that would makes aliasing UB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88854 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- After the fix for PR10112 we still need to handle the case to insert an additional hashtable entry when we found a value to CSE to (see comment #1).

[Bug analyzer/97233] [11 Regression] ICE in deref_rvalue, at analyzer/region-model.cc:1465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97233 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/97488] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in wi::set_bit_large)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97488 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/57883] Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed by r12-1822

[Bug c++/57883] Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- A test had to be changed due to the new (much better) diagnostic: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/testsuite/g%2B%2B.dg/parse/saved1.C;h=1deaa93f516894d4757fc8671d630dcbfedaf4f6;hp=979a0

[Bug tree-optimization/99793] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -Os, -O2 and -O3 (vs. -O1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99793 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34b1e44e166c58df20a15cb35b6cc8d4d299d415 commit r12-3919-g34b1e44e166c58df20a15cb35b6cc8d4d299d415 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/99793] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -Os, -O2 and -O3 (vs. -O1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99793 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/102498] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Long double constant and non-default rounding mode on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b7041e8345c2f1030e58620f28e22d64b2c196b commit r12-3920-g3b7041e8345c2f1030e58620f28e22d64b2c196b Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: T

[Bug target/102498] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Long double constant and non-default rounding mode on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6de756d7a7a72ad67eaba33e6102c2e4874bf6e6 commit r11-9035-g6de756d7a7a72ad67eaba33e6102c2e4874bf6e6 Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug target/102498] [9/10 Regression] Long double constant and non-default rounding mode on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102498 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10 Regression] Long

[Bug middle-end/102504] [12 Regression] ICE in build_outer_var_ref, at omp-low.c:746

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102504 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/102500] [12 regression] Missing include for gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Assignee|unassigne

[Bug tree-optimization/49749] Reassociation rank algorithm does not include all non-NULL operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49749 --- Comment #18 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Ilya Leoshkevich : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbed1c8693c6b5cb02c903cea91db574200bd513 commit r12-3922-gdbed1c8693c6b5cb02c903cea91db574200bd513 Author: Ilya Leoshkevich Dat

[Bug sanitizer/102515] New: UBSAN misses signed division instrumentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515 Bug ID: 102515 Summary: UBSAN misses signed division instrumentation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: san

[Bug sanitizer/102515] UBSAN misses signed division instrumentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- ubsan already handles that in c-family/c-ubsan.c (ubsan_instrument_division). But we don't have an ifn for that. And it is not covered by -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow but -fsanitize=integer-divide-by-

[Bug sanitizer/102515] UBSAN misses signed division instrumentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- I see - I wonder whether we should do || sanitize_flags_p (SANITIZE_SI_OVERFLOW) for this specific case. For -ftrapv I also really was looking at instrumentation from the frontend rather than from pass_ubs

[Bug sanitizer/102515] UBSAN misses signed division instrumentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102515 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Btw, clang documents: -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow: Signed integer overflow, where the result of a signed integer computation cannot be represented in its type. This includes all the checks covered b

[Bug libgomp/96661] configure:16984: error: unsupported system, cannot find Fortran int kind=16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f0a57bd54aed558e0167016dd980177f88f8480 commit r12-3927-g1f0a57bd54aed558e0167016dd980177f88f8480 Author: Tobias Burnus Date: Tu

[Bug target/96306] gcn libgomp build broken after "libomp: Add omp_depend_kind to omp_lib.{f90,h}"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96306 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug libgomp/96661] configure:16984: error: unsupported system, cannot find Fortran int kind=16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661 --- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus --- Note the commit in comment 4 does not solve the problem that the hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 target in does not support TImode alias __int128 (yet) However, when building libgomp without Fortran support, it now sh

[Bug libgomp/96661] configure:16984: error: unsupported system, cannot find Fortran int kind=16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e7da0da76fc6c2ef19635bc5dd507789965da33 commit r11-9036-g8e7da0da76fc6c2ef19635bc5dd507789965da33 Author: Tobias Burnus D

[Bug fortran/102510] Function call has unnecessary stride check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510 --- Comment #2 from Dalon Work --- Thanks for the information. Based on your comments, I've created 2 new subroutines that call the "bad" function. The first places the result in a contiguous array, while the second places the result in a stride

[Bug libstdc++/96416] [DR 3545] to_address() is broken by static_assert in pointer_traits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96416 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|SUSPENDED Summary|to_addres

[Bug c++/102496] [11/12 regression] extern __thread and thread_local declaration in function scope produces a non-TLS reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/99227] [meta] [modules] Bugs relating to header-units of STL header files

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99227 Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johelegp at gmail dot com

[Bug c++/102496] [11/12 regression] extern __thread and thread_local declaration in function scope produces a non-TLS reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102496 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Started with r11-3699-g4e62aca0e0520e4ed2532f2d8153581190621c1a

[Bug rtl-optimization/90275] [9 Regression] ICE: in insert_regs, at cse.c:1128 with -O2 -fno-dce -fno-tree-dce

OLLECT_GCC=../gcc/results/bin/arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/pi/gcc/results.20210928/libexec/gcc/arm-linux-gnueabihf/12.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: arm-linux-gnueabihf Configured with: ../trunk/configure --prefix=/home/pi/gcc/results.20210928 --disable-bootstrap --disable-multilib

[Bug tree-optimization/102511] [12 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code for -O3: first element of the array is skipped after r12-3903

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102511 --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #6) > > Describing the process to get here makes it abundantly clear that we need to > > improve the process of debugg

[Bug middle-end/102516] New: [12 regression] pr65947-13.c and vect-alias-check-18.c fail on armeb since r12-3893

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102516 Bug ID: 102516 Summary: [12 regression] pr65947-13.c and vect-alias-check-18.c fail on armeb since r12-3893 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug fortran/102500] [12 regression] Missing include for gfortran.dg/include_15.f90 in r12-3722

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102500 --- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- It is no longer failing for me. Thanks!

[Bug middle-end/102517] New: [12 regression] regressions on aarch64 since r12-3899

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102517 Bug ID: 102517 Summary: [12 regression] regressions on aarch64 since r12-3899 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug target/101985] vec_cpsgn parameter order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101985 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Kunwar, can you please tell us (if you don't mind) where the problem was detected? Since we're changing behavior of the intrinsic, we'll need to document this, and knowing whether we have problematic code in

[Bug testsuite/102501] [12 regression] several test case failures after r12-3876

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102501 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100583] [modules] ICE when importing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100583 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug testsuite/102501] [12 regression] several test case failures after r12-3876

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102501 --- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez --- Does this fix the problem on your end? https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/580411.html

[Bug middle-end/102518] New: [11/12 regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: einline in gimplify_modify_expr at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102518 Bug ID: 102518 Summary: [11/12 regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: einline in gimplify_modify_expr at -O2 Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug libstdc++/102499] [12 Regression] Noexcept not matching for std::filesystem::path. Compilation fails for clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2b7f56a15d9cbbd2f0db22e0e39c4dd161bab69 commit r12-3930-gf2b7f56a15d9cbbd2f0db22e0e39c4dd161bab69 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/102499] [12 Regression] Noexcept not matching for std::filesystem::path. Compilation fails for clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102499 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/102519] New: [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 Bug ID: 102519 Summary: [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: memory-hog Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/102519] [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org Ever

[Bug middle-end/102519] [12 Regression] VRP Jump threader memory explosion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102519 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/101104] test case gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/cdivchkld.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101104 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/102454] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2958

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102454 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fae627162d5f8cfb273b10349883eeb74baaa43f commit r12-3932-gfae627162d5f8cfb273b10349883eeb74baaa43f Author: Iain Sandoe Date: Mon

[Bug fortran/102510] Function call has unnecessary stride check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- It helps to look at the (Fortran) context. As written, the subroutine version is declared with explicit size contiguous arrays. If the caller has a non-contiguous (strided) result array, it need

[Bug fortran/102520] New: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_constructor, at fortran/array.c:1802

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102520 Bug ID: 102520 Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_constructor, at fortran/array.c:1802 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/102521] New: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:6240

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102521 Bug ID: 102521 Summary: ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:6240 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/57883] Feature request: better diagnostic for unknown type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57883 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/102522] New: Multiplication by scalar on arm-v7 seems to generate scalar code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102522 Bug ID: 102522 Summary: Multiplication by scalar on arm-v7 seems to generate scalar code Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/102510] Function call has unnecessary stride check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102510 --- Comment #4 from Dalon Work --- No, I don't think there is more to expect. My mistaken assumption was that the return value of the function had to be a contiguous array of 8 elements. I don't find this to be a stupid assumption, since the dec

[Bug middle-end/102518] [11/12 regression] ICE during GIMPLE pass: einline in gimplify_modify_expr at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102518 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/102522] Multiplication by scalar on arm-v7 seems to generate scalar code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102522 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/102520] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in expand_constructor, at fortran/array.c:1802

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102520 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28 Ever confirme

[Bug fortran/102521] ICE in gfc_conv_array_initializer, at fortran/trans-array.c:6240

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102521 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-28 Ever confirme

[Bug target/102169] powerpc64 int memory operations using FP instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102169 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- So we have the following during IRA: (insn 7 2 8 2 (set (reg:SI 120 [ barD.3297 ]) (mem/c:SI (plus:DI (unspec:DI [ (symbol_ref:DI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])

  1   2   >