[Bug fortran/89574] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in conv_function_val, at fortran/trans-expr.c:3792

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89574 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug debug/89498] [8/9 Regression] ICE in AT_loc_list, at dwarf2out.c:4871

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89498 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug tree-optimization/21982] GCC should combine adjacent stdio calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21982 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #39

[Bug debug/89498] [8/9 Regression] ICE in AT_loc_list, at dwarf2out.c:4871

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89498 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/89139] GCC emits code for static functions that aren't used by the optimized code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89139 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug libstdc++/86655] std::assoc_legendre should not constrain the value of m

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86655 --- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Also, the legendre functions should not be onstrained on the argument x either. They are just polynomials. The recursions are numerically good in this range (|x| > 1) also.

[Bug c++/89561] feature request: undefined behaviour compile-time configuration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89561 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- It's not possible to detect all instances of undefined behavior and emit some "reasonable" or "safe" code (whatever that might mean in each instance), certainly not without compromising efficiency. Timing a p

[Bug c++/89550] [8/9 Regression] Spurious array-bounds warning when using __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ as a string_view

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89550 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/89561] feature request: undefined behaviour compile-time configuration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89561 --- Comment #8 from bugsthecode at mail dot ru --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #7) > It's not possible to detect all instances of undefined behavior and emit > some "reasonable" or "safe" code (whatever that might mean in each > instanc

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 --- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Mar 4 18:57:13 2019 New Revision: 269371 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269371&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/71446 * call.c (field_in_pset): New function.

[Bug middle-end/89501] Odd lack of warning about missing initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501 ncm at cantrip dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ncm at cantrip dot org --- Comme

[Bug c++/71446] Incorrect overload resolution when using designated initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71446 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/89501] Odd lack of warning about missing initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501 --- Comment #10 from Linus Torvalds --- (In reply to ncm from comment #9) > What I don't understand is why it doesn't optimize away the check on > (somecondition), since it is assuming the code in the dependent block always > runs. No, it very m

[Bug libstdc++/88996] Implement P0439R0 - Make std::memory_order a scoped enumeration.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88996 --- Comment #7 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: emsr Date: Mon Mar 4 20:11:14 2019 New Revision: 269372 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269372&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-04 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> PR

[Bug fortran/71203] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.c:1512 and :1564

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71203 --- Comment #8 from Harald Anlauf --- The following obvious patch fixes the character-related issues (z1,z2,z3,z3a,z3b): Index: expr.c === --- expr.c (revision 269357) +++ expr

[Bug middle-end/89544] Argument marshalling incorrectly assumes stack slots are naturally aligned.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89544 --- Comment #5 from Bernd Edlinger --- Created attachment 45888 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45888&action=edit untested patch This is an update of my previous patch, avoids the unaligned mem:DI in about the same way how a

[Bug ipa/89584] New: CPU2000 degradations with r268448 (172.mgrid -22%, 252.eon -8%)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89584 Bug ID: 89584 Summary: CPU2000 degradations with r268448 (172.mgrid -22%, 252.eon -8%) Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/89538] [7.3.0] GCC miscompiling LLVM because of wrong vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89538 --- Comment #5 from Taewook Oh --- The name of the function is "void llvm::SmallVectorTemplateBase >::grow(size_t) [with T = std::pair, const llvm::DICompositeType*>; bool = false]". I tried with GCC 7.4.0, and seems that GCC 7.4.0 doesn't atte

[Bug c/89585] New: GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 Bug ID: 89585 Summary: GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk --- (Sorry, to be clear, the comment about -Wasm-ignored-qualifier is about a warning clang emits for this construct, not a GCC warning.)

[Bug libobjc/89586] New: warning: cast between incompatible function types when building libobjc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89586 Bug ID: 89586 Summary: warning: cast between incompatible function types when building libobjc Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug libobjc/89586] warning: cast between incompatible function types when building libobjc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89586 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk --- This was intentionally(!) broken in a backport, https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=267534, which specifically adds a test that this results not even in a user-friendly error message, but

[Bug middle-end/89501] Odd lack of warning about missing initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- WRT c#9. Linus is right. THe condition is dynamic and we don't want to remove it in this circumstance. More generally we have considered whether or not we could eliminate the control dependent path whic

[Bug middle-end/89501] Odd lack of warning about missing initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501 --- Comment #12 from Linus Torvalds --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #11) > > More generally we have considered whether or not we could eliminate the > control dependent path which leads to undefined behavior. But you have to > be

[Bug c++/84605] [7/8/9 Regression] internal compiler error: in xref_basetypes, at cp/decl.c:13818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84605 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Mon Mar 4 23:49:23 2019 New Revision: 269378 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269378&root=gcc&view=rev Log: /cp 2019-03-04 Paolo Carlini PR c++/84605 *

[Bug c++/84605] [7/8 Regression] internal compiler error: in xref_basetypes, at cp/decl.c:13818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84605 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8/9 Regression] internal |[7/8 Regression] internal

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/89443] toplevel inline-asm with volatile after the asm is not anymore support in C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89443 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/89579] -Wclobbered warning false positive when compiling with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89579 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICA

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585 --- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk --- According to , the GCC 8 backport was not supposed to break existing code, it was supposed to warn about code that would become invalid in GCC 9. It

[Bug middle-end/89501] Odd lack of warning about missing initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89501 --- Comment #13 from ncm at cantrip dot org --- What I am getting is that the compiler is leaving that permitted optimization -- eliminating the inode check -- on the table. It is doing that not so much because it would make Linus angry, but as an

[Bug target/68211] Free __m128d subreg of double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68211 --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Steven Bosscher from comment #7) > __m128d y = { x, 0 }; > return _mm_cvtsd_f64(_mm_sqrt_round_sd(y, y, > _MM_FROUND_TO_POS_INF|_MM_FROUND_NO_EXC)); I don't necessarily advocate for optimizing

[Bug middle-end/61112] Simple example triggers false-positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61112 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/89566] [9 Regression] ICE on compilable C++ code: in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3166

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89566 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code CC|

[Bug driver/89587] New: gcc's rs6000 configuration unconditionally sets MULTIARCH_DIRNAME, even when multiarch is disabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89587 Bug ID: 89587 Summary: gcc's rs6000 configuration unconditionally sets MULTIARCH_DIRNAME, even when multiarch is disabled Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/66203] aarch64-none-elf does not automatically find librdimon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66203 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #4) > The Arm builds that do not need anything from libgloss (and thus do not need > a specs file) while linking come from a configuration that hard codes the > unde

[Bug c++/45065] -fvisibility-inlines-hidden: Decl order in derived class affects visibility of inlines in base.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45065 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3) > (In reply to Dean Edmonds from comment #0) > > Compiling with -fvisibility=hidden and -fvisibility-inlines-hidden. > > > > I have a Base class with default visib

[Bug rtl-optimization/89588] New: [8/9 Regression] ICE in unroll_loop_constant_iterations, at loop-unroll.c:498

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89588 Bug ID: 89588 Summary: [8/9 Regression] ICE in unroll_loop_constant_iterations, at loop-unroll.c:498 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice

[Bug c++/86641] Regression: non-ODR used auto class data members fail to deduce.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86641 Eric Fiselier changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/68975] Request: Provide alternate keyword for decltype in C++03

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68975 Eric Fiselier changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/65403] -Wno-error= is an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65403 --- Comment #11 from Alex Henrie --- Created attachment 45889 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45889&action=edit Proposed patches I fixed up the patch from comment 4 and added a second patch with tests. Now I'm just waiting t

[Bug target/89411] RISC-V backend will generate wrong instruction for longlong type like lw a3,-2048(a5)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89411 Tao Wang changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wangtao42 at huawei dot com --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug target/88497] Improve Accumulation in Auto-Vectorized Code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88497 --- Comment #9 from Kewen Lin --- As Kelvin mentioned in the last comment, there is some thing we teach reassoc to get the below code better, although it's in low priority. double foo (double accumulator, vector double arg2[], vector double arg3

[Bug target/88497] Improve Accumulation in Auto-Vectorized Code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88497 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED

<    1   2