[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #6 from Murat --- Hello Dominique! I took the test file from here: http://www.fortran-2000.com/ArnaudRecipes/fcvs21_f95.html (file fcvs21_f95.tar.bz2, modified version that conforms to Fortran 95). I tried to compile with the

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #5 from Murat --- Created attachment 45337 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45337=edit files of tests

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #3 from Murat --- Created attachment 45335 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45335=edit gfortran verson

[Bug fortran/88653] Is this a compiler bug?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88653 --- Comment #4 from Murat --- Created attachment 45336 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45336=edit error message

[Bug bootstrap/88668] Code generated was different for PowerPC when build!=host compared to build=host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88668 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- So the correct fix is to add --enable-targets=$enable_targets to ${realsrcdir}/configure command instead.

[Bug bootstrap/88668] Code generated was different for PowerPC when build!=host compared to build=host

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88668 --- Comment #5 from Umesh Kalappa --- Andrew unfortunately your suggestion didn't worked for us and there was mis-lead in our fix and the actual change was like --- a/gcc/configure +++ b/gcc/configure @@ -11795,15 +11795,16 @@ else

[Bug c/51712] -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Nieder --- That said, as mentioned in comment#15, the use of -fno-short-enums in the test is not right. I'll try removing that and see if the test still passes tomorrow (it should).

[Bug libstdc++/88689] New: Resource leak.. Leaked storage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88689 Bug ID: 88689 Summary: Resource leak.. Leaked storage Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug fortran/88688] New: Incorrect association in SELECT TYPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88688 Bug ID: 88688 Summary: Incorrect association in SELECT TYPE Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug c/88687] redundant -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch after -Wimplicit-function-declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88687 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Severity|normal

[Bug c/88687] New: redundant -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch after -Wimplicit-function-declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88687 Bug ID: 88687 Summary: redundant -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch after -Wimplicit-function-declaration Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/88659] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_warn_nonstring_arg at gcc/calls.c:1688 since r267503

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88659 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/88659] [9 Regression] ICE in maybe_warn_nonstring_arg at gcc/calls.c:1688 since r267503

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88659 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Fri Jan 4 03:13:33 2019 New Revision: 267569 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267569=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/88659 - ICE in maybe_warn_nonstring_arg gcc/ChangeLog:

[Bug preprocessor/67276] duplicated missing terminating character diagnostic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67276 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/64679] Spurious redefinition error when parsing not-quite-most-vexing-parse declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64679 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/87836] ICE in cc1 for gcc-6.5.0 with SPARC hardware

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87836 --- Comment #23 from Gary Mills --- It's not Solaris, first of all. Solaris is a closed system once again. It's illumos, which is derived from Opensolaris. These are the two assemblers: This is on SPARC hardware: $ as -V as: Sun Compiler

[Bug other/70968] Missed case for -Wmisleading-indentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70968 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/69215] Improve diagnostic for 'for(i : v)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69215 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/38629] target-specific parameters for inline heuristics not defined for AVR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38629 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug other/85716] No easy way for end-user to tell what GCC is doing when compilation is slow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85716 --- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to sandra from comment #9) > Just to clarify, I didn't have anything to do with proposing a "progress > bar"; I just needed to know whether the split1 pass had run yet. And I > ended up solving

[Bug target/15896] Strange behaviour for inline assembler input constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15896 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/64525] Duplicate instructions in both paths in conditional code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64525 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|kugan at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/88683] nan <= inf not accepted as constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88683 --- Comment #2 from Martin Jansche --- Yeah, looks definitely related. Details may depend on the ultimate diagnosis. Similar observation here that it matters whether NaN appears on the left-hand side vs. right-hand side of a comparison (cf.

[Bug c/51712] -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712 Jonathan Nieder changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/88686] gcc generates wrong debug information at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88686 --- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang --- The output should be "j=0". However, it incorrectly prints "j=1" at -O1.

[Bug debug/88686] New: gcc generates wrong debug information at -O1

t;gcc version 9.0.0 20190103 (experimental) [trunk revision 267553] (GCC)". The gdb version does not matter. I can reproduce it with gdb 7.7. Below is my original report: =8<= $ gdb-trunk --version GNU gdb (GDB) 8.2.50.20181223-git *It correctly prints the value without optimization

[Bug fortran/88685] [8/9 regression] pointer class array argument indexing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88685 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug c/51712] -Wtype-limits should not trigger for types of implementation-defined signedness

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51712 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/82924] gcc gives no warning for comparing unsigned integer < 0 even with -Wextra enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82924 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/82521] [7/8/9 Regression] No -Wtype-limits warning when using templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jure.slak at ijs dot si --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/82521] [7/8/9 Regression] No -Wtype-limits warning when using templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82521 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/88685] New: 8/9 regression] pointer class array argument indexing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88685 Bug ID: 88685 Summary: 8/9 regression] pointer class array argument indexing Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/87364] Pretty print of enumerator never prints the id, always falls back to C-style cast output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364 --- Comment #12 from Will Wray --- I can take a look at the weekend or early next week - reproduce the test fails and diagnose some more. I'll try to find answers to the questions I raised in comment #4 (about name mangling of enum types) and

[Bug c++/87364] Pretty print of enumerator never prints the id, always falls back to C-style cast output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Will Wray from comment #4) > Thanks Martin, > > I investigated enum template args with GCC bug 81932 test code, > repeating its GDB Python-debug-print test case for enum args. > >

[Bug libstdc++/88170] [9 Regression] pretty printer FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Looks like these warnings were mentioned in PR 87634 comment 4, but nobody noticed the resulting test failures.

[Bug c++/87364] Pretty print of enumerator never prints the id, always falls back to C-style cast output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87364 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- This caused PR 88170

[Bug c++/88683] nan <= inf not accepted as constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88683 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- DUP of PR 88173?

[Bug libstdc++/88170] [9 Regression] pretty printer FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88170 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wjwray at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/88684] New: Please make SANITIZER_NON_UNIQUE_TYPEINFO a runtime flag (or always true)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88684 Bug ID: 88684 Summary: Please make SANITIZER_NON_UNIQUE_TYPEINFO a runtime flag (or always true) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/88683] New: nan <= inf not accepted as constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88683 Bug ID: 88683 Summary: nan <= inf not accepted as constant expression Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/88607] forward_list.h contains utf-8 charactor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 3 22:07:52 2019 New Revision: 267565 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267565=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/88607 replace some more UTF-8 characters 2019-01-03 Jonathan Wakely

[Bug libstdc++/88681] Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/88672] friend class template declaration in a class template is ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Thanks!

[Bug fortran/45424] [F08] Add IS_CONTIGUOUS intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45424 Harald Anlauf changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45322|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/88682] new test case c-c++-common/pr51628-10.c fails starting with its introduction in r267313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn |powerpc64*-unknown-linux-gn

[Bug libstdc++/88607] forward_list.h contains utf-8 charactor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/88680] [9 Regression] bogus -Wtype-limits for constant expressions after r267272

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88680 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/82613] Cannot access private definitions in base clause of friend class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82613 Damian Jarek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||damian.jarek93 at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/88672] friend class template declaration in a class template is ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672 Damian Jarek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/88607] forward_list.h contains utf-8 charactor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88607 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 3 20:38:11 2019 New Revision: 267564 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267564=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/88607 replace or remove unnecessary UTF-8 characters There are a

[Bug libstdc++/88681] Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jan 3 20:38:04 2019 New Revision: 267563 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=267563=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/88681 export missing symbols These new facet functions were added to

[Bug c/88674] GCC thinks that register is a qualifier in function declaration with no parameters.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88674 Anders Granlund changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/88682] new test case c-c++-common/pr51628-10.c fails starting with its introduction in r267313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/88682] new test case c-c++-common/pr51628-10.c fails starting with its introduction in r267313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug testsuite/88682] New: new test case c-c++-common/pr51628-10.c fails starting with its introduction in r267313

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88682 Bug ID: 88682 Summary: new test case c-c++-common/pr51628-10.c fails starting with its introduction in r267313 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:39:05PM +, seurer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 > > --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- > Program received signal

[Bug target/86891] [9 Regression] __builtin_sub_overflow incorrect for unsigned types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891 --- Comment #5 from Wilco --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #4) > Yes, the extension should be zero-extend, not sign extend. The plus > operation is correct, however, since decrementing the first operand could > lead to underflow

[Bug target/88594] [9 Regression] ICE in int_mode_for_mode, at stor-layout.c:403

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88594 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88343] [7/8 Regression] R31 is unconditionally saved/restored on powerpc-darwin even when it's not necessary.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343 --- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #19) > Created attachment 45330 [details] > Bad assembly (from trunk r267560 with the patch still present) Thanks, Joseph, that's very helpful. .. so the code

[Bug target/88616] [9 Regression] ICE in gimplify_expr at gcc/gimplify.c:13363

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88616 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous arithmetic operation. Backtrace for this error: #0 0x3fffb17f0477 in ??? #1 0x3fffb14f1694 in feenableexcept at

[Bug libstdc++/88681] Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- N.B. When optimization is enabled the functions are inlined, so the exports aren't needed.

[Bug libstdc++/88681] Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/88681] New: Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88681 Bug ID: 88681 Summary: Missing symbol exports in libstdc++.so Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/88620] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in assign_stack_temp_for_type, at function.c:837

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88620 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/88679] SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/88343] [7/8 Regression] R31 is unconditionally saved/restored on powerpc-darwin even when it's not necessary.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343 --- Comment #19 from Joseph S. Myers --- Created attachment 45330 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45330=edit Bad assembly (from trunk r267560 with the patch still present)

[Bug target/88343] [7/8 Regression] R31 is unconditionally saved/restored on powerpc-darwin even when it's not necessary.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343 --- Comment #18 from Joseph S. Myers --- Created attachment 45329 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45329=edit Good assembly (with the GCC patch reverted)

[Bug target/88343] [7/8 Regression] R31 is unconditionally saved/restored on powerpc-darwin even when it's not necessary.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343 --- Comment #17 from Joseph S. Myers --- Created attachment 45328 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45328=edit Preprocessed source Replacing s_nextafterf.os built with trunk with that patch reverted, by the same file as built

[Bug target/88679] SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Your GCC is configured -m32 ISA to x86-64 ISA by default. To default -m32 ISA to i686 ISA, please configure your GCC with --with-arch_32=i686. Or you can use "-march=i686 -m32".

[Bug c++/88680] New: [9 Regression] bogus -Wtype-limits for constant expressions after r267272

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88680 Bug ID: 88680 Summary: [9 Regression] bogus -Wtype-limits for constant expressions after r267272 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/88679] SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86

with: ../gcc-trunk-20190103/configure --prefix=/opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-build/staging --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu --disable-bootstrap --enable-multiarch --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --enable-multilib --enable-clocale=gnu --enable

[Bug c/88674] GCC thinks that register is a qualifier in function declaration with no parameters.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88674 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- "qualified" is used in the informal sense of "any additional specifiers along with void", not in the sense of "type qualifiers present". The program is not valid. J.2 explicitly lists "A

[Bug c++/88672] friend class template declaration in a class template is ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Also, https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says we need the testcase in bugzilla, and not just a URL to some other site.

[Bug c++/88672] friend class template declaration in a class template is ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88672 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Please check if this is a duplicate of one of the bugs that PR 59002 depends on.

[Bug target/88510] GCC generates inefficient U64x2/v2di scalar multiply for NEON32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88510 --- Comment #2 from Devin Hussey --- Update: I did the calculations, and twomul has the same cycle count as goodmul_sse. vmul.i32 with 128-bit operands takes 4 cycles (I assumed it was two), so just like goodmul_sse, it takes 11 cycles.

[Bug libstdc++/88673] Overflowed array index read error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88673 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88679] SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88343] [7/8 Regression] R31 is unconditionally saved/restored on powerpc-darwin even when it's not necessary.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88343 --- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, iains at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything in the GCC test suite that > catches this (all languages reg-strap was clean, on

[Bug c/88679] New: SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88679 Bug ID: 88679 Summary: SSE2 intrinsics are available by default on x86 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/88675] std::make_integer_sequence not working for enums

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88675 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/88027] PowerPC generates slightly weird code for memset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88027 acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug lto/88677] [9 Regression] Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-reduction --- Comment #5 from

[Bug lto/88677] [9 Regression] Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- This drops TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING. I checked the uses jan@skylake:~/trunk/gcc> grep TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRU *.c gimplify.c: || TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING (TREE_TYPE (decl print-tree.c: if

[Bug fortran/88678] [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to seurer from comment #0) > Program received signal SIGFPE: Floating-point exception - erroneous > arithmetic operation. > > Backtrace for this error: > #0 0x3fffb00304d7 in ??? What

[Bug lto/88677] [9 Regression] Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/88678] New: [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88678 Bug ID: 88678 Summary: [9 regression] Many gfortran.dg/ieee/ieee_X.f90 test cases fail starting with r267465 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/86891] [9 Regression] __builtin_sub_overflow incorrect for unsigned types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86891 --- Comment #4 from Richard Earnshaw --- Yes, the extension should be zero-extend, not sign extend. The plus operation is correct, however, since decrementing the first operand could lead to underflow if it was zero. So the correct rtl would

[Bug lto/88677] Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 45327 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45327=edit dump with lto

[Bug lto/88677] Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677 --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 45326 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45326=edit dump with no lto

[Bug lto/88677] New: Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88677 Bug ID: 88677 Summary: Divergence in -O2 and -O2 -flto early opts Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto

[Bug tree-optimization/88598] simplification of multiplication by 1 or 0 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598 > > --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > I think a general fix

[Bug fortran/88669] Contiguous attribute wrongly rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88669 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig --- Works when class(t) is replaced by type(t), so the attributes were not correctly set somewhere.

[Bug tree-optimization/88598] simplification of multiplication by 1 or 0 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598 --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- I think a general fix for this would involve tracking the set of nonzero vector elements and adding a match.pd rule that uses that to replace REDUC functions in which only one element of the

[Bug tree-optimization/84478] [8 Regression] pdftex miscompilation on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84478 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #5) > The new testcase FAILs e.g. on i386-pc-solaris2.11 and sparc-sun-solaris2.11 > (32-bit only) at -O1 and above: > > +FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr84478.c -O1

[Bug d/88654] Hangs in libphobos testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88654 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > > The reason I'm filing this is that there are multiple issues: > > > > 1) what I'm worried about most is that the

[Bug tree-optimization/88676] New: missed opportunity is integer conditional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88676 Bug ID: 88676 Summary: missed opportunity is integer conditional Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/88671] generic vector passed in MMX regs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88671 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/88598] simplification of multiplication by 1 or 0 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88598 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug d/88654] Hangs in libphobos testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88654 --- Comment #3 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #0) > The reason I'm filing this is that there are multiple issues: > > 1) what I'm worried about most is that the timeouts for tests don't work, it > happens that some

  1   2   >