[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 --- Comment #21 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Tobias, did your big patch fully fix this issue so that we can close it?

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- So in uninit1 we have: if (_6691 != 0) goto ; [5.50%] else goto ; [94.50%] [local count: 17344687]: goto ; [100.00%] [local count: 298013267]: [local count: 315357954]: # const_up

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- Hmm, somehow unroll messes up the relationship ...

[Bug rtl-optimization/102840] [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6aceeb3fb64b0e82fc3301026669062797ec01a5 commit r12-4618-g6aceeb3fb64b0e82fc3301026669062797ec01a5 Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Thu O

[Bug rtl-optimization/102840] [12 Regression] gcc.target/i386/pr22076.c by r12-4475

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102840 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/101304] Bind(C): CONTIGUOUS attribute not handled correctly in Fortran routines called from C with discontiguous argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101304 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/98667] gcc generates endbr32 invalid opcode on -march=i486

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1373066a46d8d47abd97e46a005aef3b3dbfe94a commit r12-4619-g1373066a46d8d47abd97e46a005aef3b3dbfe94a Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Oct 21 09

[Bug c/102875] __builtin_strncpy output may be truncated copying bytes from a string of length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102875 Jonathan Marler changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/98667] gcc generates endbr32 invalid opcode on -march=i486

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e74336df42fa36244d576dd155d7e2e2c42bc3a0 commit r11-9179-ge74336df42fa36244d576dd155d7e2e2c42bc3a0 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu

[Bug target/98667] gcc generates endbr32 invalid opcode on -march=i486

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667 --- Comment #18 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:523dc71f5cb858da18e1f648269746dab519b445 commit r10-10228-g523dc71f5cb858da18e1f648269746dab519b445 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu

[Bug target/98667] gcc generates endbr32 invalid opcode on -march=i486

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667 --- Comment #19 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5ed78f8bd84eb696579d928c816bc840664829b2 commit r9-9792-g5ed78f8bd84eb696579d928c816bc840664829b2 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Oc

[Bug c++/102876] GCC fails to use constant initialization even when it knows the value to initialize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102876 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- But yes, the implicit constexpr patch I've been working on would likely improve this as well.

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- Good news I can reproduce the warning with the preprocessed source on a native x86_64-linux-gnu trunk GCC.

[Bug tree-optimization/102879] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102879 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug middle-end/102887] New: wrong warning location with macro expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102887 Bug ID: 102887 Summary: wrong warning location with macro expansion Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: midd

[Bug middle-end/102887] wrong warning location with macro expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102887 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/102878] Internal compiler error with coroutine calling constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102878 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug c++/96517] ICE in is_this_parameter when accessing constexpr method of a field inside coroutine lambda (with optimization)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96517 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lcw at fb dot com --- Comment #1 from Iain

[Bug tree-optimization/102888] New: missing case for combining / and % into one operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102888 Bug ID: 102888 Summary: missing case for combining / and % into one operation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug fortran/101319] Missing diagnostic for argument with type parameters for assumed-type dummy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101319 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/101320] Bind(C): Missing diagnostic for constraint C1557 on allocatable/pointer arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101320 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/101333] gfortran fails to enforce C711 on assumed-type actual arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101333 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libffi/102874] [12 regression] src/x86/win64.S doesn't assemble with Solaris as

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874 --- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- > Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc? It does when gcc is configured with gas, but doesn't when configured with /b

[Bug fortran/54753] assumed-rank dummies: Reject assumed-size actuals in in some cases (C535c; in F2018: C839)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54753 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/101334] gfortran fails to enforce C838 on disallowed uses of assumed-rank variable names + bogus errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101334 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNC

[Bug fortran/101337] gfortran doesn't diagnose all operands with constraint violations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101337 --- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- This is likely a "won't fix" bug, but I'll leave it open for now. The test cases (now committed) are still XFAILed.

[Bug libffi/102874] [12 regression] src/x86/win64.S doesn't assemble with Solaris as

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102874 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #3) > > --- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu --- > > Does libffi 3.4.2 work on Solaris? If yes, why doesn't it work in gcc? > > It does when gcc is configured with

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- So this is definitely a bad interaction between complete unrolling where we had: for (unsigned int i = 1; i < 2; i++) if (this->coeffs[1] != 0) return false; And jump threading. I am still redu

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51648|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51649|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/100907] Bind(c): failure handling wide character

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100907 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug fortran/100916] Bind(c): CFI_type_other unimplemented.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100916 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c++/102508] ICE on coroutine when awaiting inside a statement expression (in transform_local_var_uses, at cp/coroutines.cc:2102)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102508 --- Comment #1 from Kacper Słomiński --- Was about to report this myself; here is a minimal test case that reproduces this issue without using any external libraries. It causes a slightly different ICE in gimplify_expr in gimplify.c:14879 for GC

[Bug libstdc++/102882] [AIX] 23_containers 96088 testsuite failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102882 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/100914] Bind(c): errors handling complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100914 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASS

[Bug fortran/100911] Bind(c): failure handling C_PTR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100911 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/100915] Bind(c): failure handling C_FUNPTR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100915 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNC

[Bug fortran/100910] Bind(c): errors handling long double complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100910 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/102566] [i386] GCC should emit LOCK BTS for simple bit-test-and-set operations with std::atomic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102566 --- Comment #28 from Hongtao.liu --- Can be optimize int gomp_futex_wake = FUTEX_WAKE | FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG; int gomp_futex_wait = FUTEX_WAIT | FUTEX_PRIVATE_FLAG; void gomp_mutex_lock_slow (gomp_mutex_t *mutex, int oldval) { /* First loop sp

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski --- So the major difference comes from mark_stack_region_used. We have a missing jump thread in ethread. Before the patch, ethread was able to jump thread all the way through: if (_13 != 0) goto ; [5.50%

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 --- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15) > We totally missed the jump threading of 3->5->7 path and the 4->5->8 path. FAIL: path through PHI in bb8 (incoming bb:6) crosses loop But but, it does not

[Bug rtl-optimization/79405] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Infinite loop in fwprop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79405 Steven Bosscher changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING CC|

[Bug bootstrap/102681] [12 Regression] AArch64 bootstrap failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102681 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added CC|tamar.christina at arm dot com | --- Comment #17 from Tamar Ch

[Bug c++/102883] Calling co_yield with initializer list containing shared_ptr causes internal compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102883 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/102885] [12 Regression] ICE when compiling gfortran.dg/bind_c_char_10.f90 with -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102885 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.2.1 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug testsuite/102886] [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/sra-18.c fails starting with r12-4607

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102886 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/102888] missing case for combining / and % into one operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102888 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/102880] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102880 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #2 from

[Bug tree-optimization/102880] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102880 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|missed-optimization | Status|NEW

<    1   2