[Bug fortran/90290] -std=f2008 should reject non-constant stop and error stop codes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/90290] -std=f2008 should reject non-constant stop and error stop codes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90290 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 21 00:54:28 2019 New Revision: 272541 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272541=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/90002] ICE: free_expr0(): Bad expr type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90002 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/90002] ICE: free_expr0(): Bad expr type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90002 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 21 00:38:13 2019 New Revision: 272540 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272540=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/89344] uncaught programmer error: polymorphic variable is INTENT(IN) but assigned to without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/89344] uncaught programmer error: polymorphic variable is INTENT(IN) but assigned to without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 21 00:24:53 2019 New Revision: 272539 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272539=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/87907] ICE in resolve_contained_fntype, at fortran/resolve.c:587

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87907 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/87907] ICE in resolve_contained_fntype, at fortran/resolve.c:587

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87907 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 21 00:12:37 2019 New Revision: 272534 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272534=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/86587] Derived-type with attributes BIND(C) and PRIVATE raises an error but standard accepts it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/86587] Derived-type with attributes BIND(C) and PRIVATE raises an error but standard accepts it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Jun 21 00:01:23 2019 New Revision: 272533 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272533=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/77632] [F08] Pointer initialisation does not quite work with arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jun 20 23:50:54 2019 New Revision: 272532 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272532=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/69499] [F03] ICE-on-invalid on combining select type with wrong statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/69499] [F03] ICE-on-invalid on combining select type with wrong statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69499 --- Comment #15 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jun 20 23:39:29 2019 New Revision: 272531 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272531=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/69398] [OOP] ICE on class with duplicate dimension attribute specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69398 --- Comment #8 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jun 20 23:27:13 2019 New Revision: 272530 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272530=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug fortran/69398] [OOP] ICE on class with duplicate dimension attribute specified

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69398 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/68544] ICE trying to pass derived type constructor as a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.0|9.2 --- Comment #15 from

[Bug fortran/68544] ICE trying to pass derived type constructor as a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68544 --- Comment #14 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jun 20 23:15:32 2019 New Revision: 272529 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272529=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl Backport from mainline PR

[Bug sanitizer/90865] ubsan causes coverage branch errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865 sshannin at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/88853] ICE: verify_type failed (error: type variant differs by TYPE_PACKED)

||2019-06-20 CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Confirmed with gcc version 10.0.0 20190620 (experimental) (GCC): 88853.C: In instantiation of ‘class yp

[Bug c++/79781] ICE on valid C++ code with -std=c++14 (in assemble_integer, at varasm.c:2733)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79781 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/79781] ICE on valid C++ code with -std=c++14 (in assemble_integer, at varasm.c:2733)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79781 --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Jun 20 22:35:34 2019 New Revision: 272527 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272527=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/79781 * g++.dg/ext/goto1.C: New test. Added:

[Bug fortran/77632] [F08] Pointer initialisation does not quite work with arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632 --- Comment #5 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #4) > Author: kargl > Date: Thu Jun 20 22:16:29 2019 > New Revision: 272526 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272526=gcc=rev > Log: > 2019-06-20 Steven G.

[Bug c++/79781] ICE on valid C++ code with -std=c++14 (in assemble_integer, at varasm.c:2733)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79781 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/77632] [F08] Pointer initialisation does not quite work with arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jun 20 22:16:29 2019 New Revision: 272526 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272526=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/77632 * /decl.c

[Bug c++/68265] Arbitrary syntactic nonsense silently accepted after 'int (*){}' until the next close brace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/68265] Arbitrary syntactic nonsense silently accepted after 'int (*){}' until the next close brace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Jun 20 22:06:36 2019 New Revision: 272525 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272525=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/68265 * g++.dg/parse/error62.C: New test. Added:

[Bug c++/68265] Arbitrary syntactic nonsense silently accepted after 'int (*){}' until the next close brace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68265 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug fortran/86587] Derived-type with attributes BIND(C) and PRIVATE raises an error but standard accepts it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86587 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Thu Jun 20 21:39:43 2019 New Revision: 272524 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272524=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/86587 *

[Bug target/90952] New: Costs of moves are used for costs of RTL expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90952 Bug ID: 90952 Summary: Costs of moves are used for costs of RTL expressions Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- In response to c#5. The difference is when you use a bool for cleanup, it has to be promoted at the recursive call call to walk(). That's just enough to change the decision between using tail call (which

[Bug c++/67898] rejects-valid on overloaded function as non-type template argument of dependent type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67898 --- Comment #2 from Richard Smith --- (Clang trunk now accepts both testcases.)

[Bug tree-optimization/84561] -Wstringop-truncation with -O2 depends on strncpy's size type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- That aside, I haven't given up and plan to post an updated patch for this bug for GCC 10.

[Bug c++/90951] [8/9/10 Regression] error initializing a constexpr array of a struct with const member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951 --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor --- The compilation error was introduced in r209934 (gcc 5.0.0) via: PR c++/60980 * init.c (build_value_init): Don't try to call an array constructor. Prior to that GCC fails with an ICE on this

[Bug c++/90951] [8/9/10 Regression] error initializing a constexpr array of a struct with const member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.5 Summary|[9/10

[Bug fortran/65921] GFortran should use __builtin_mul_overflow when checking allocation sizes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65921 --- Comment #3 from Janne Blomqvist --- Author: jb Date: Thu Jun 20 20:26:39 2019 New Revision: 272520 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272520=gcc=rev Log: libfortran/65921: Add forgotten PR number to ChangeLog 2019-06-14 Janne Blomqvist

[Bug c++/90951] New: error initializing a constexpr array of a struct with const member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951 Bug ID: 90951 Summary: error initializing a constexpr array of a struct with const member Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/84561] -Wstringop-truncation with -O2 depends on strncpy's size type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor --- The simple patch that fixed the warning was never approved. Here's my last attempt to get approval: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-11/msg01415.html It too stalled, much to my frustration.

[Bug tree-optimization/90930] Excessive memory consumption

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90930 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Łukasz Kucharski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luk32 at o2 dot pl --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Precisely. I didn't see a helper to set pt.null to 1/true, but it's trivial enough to add one.

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug c++/90947] [9/10 Regression] Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/90938] [9/10 Regression] Initializing array with {1} works, but not {0}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug tree-optimization/84561] -Wstringop-truncation with -O2 depends on strncpy's size type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84561 --- Comment #5 from Romain Geissler --- Hi, With the new release of gcc 9, I am seeing new occurences of this issue. I am trying to put a statement _string[len] = 0; after the strncpy to silence the warning, but still it triggers sometimes. Is

[Bug c++/90936] [9 Regression] Ambiguous call with ref-qualified conversion operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90936 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid, |

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com ---

[Bug fortran/77632] [F08] Pointer initialisation does not quite work with arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77632 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > Ugh. Looked at this briefly. AFAIK, the following is legal code: > > program foo >implicit none >real, target :: a >real, pointer :: b => a >

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/90913] [10 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at optabs.c:7341 since r272239

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/90926] [7/8/9/10 Regression] member char array with string literal initializer causes = {} to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90926 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/90920] [9 Regression] ABI incompatibility in std::rotate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- I did experiment with putting the range checks in *both* places, the std::rotate function and the std::__rotate helpers it calls. But there's still no guarantee you won't get a "bad" combination of

[Bug libstdc++/90920] [9 Regression] ABI incompatibility in std::rotate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90920 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug c++/90916] [10 Regression] ICE in retrieve_specialization, at cp/pt.c:1258

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c++/90916] [10 Regression] ICE in retrieve_specialization, at cp/pt.c:1258

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90916 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0

[Bug c++/90915] [9/10 Regression] ICE in has_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.c:4221

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90915 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

[Bug debug/90914] [10 Regression] ICE in schedule_generic_params_dies_gen, at dwarf2out.c:27153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90914 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/90913] [10 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at optabs.c:7341 since r272239

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- The ICE is because .MASK_LOAD/.MASK_STORE calls are supported just for vectors. The way it is done is that during ifcvt those internal calls are added to the .LOOP_VECTORIZED guarded loops, and either we

[Bug tree-optimization/90913] [10 Regression] ICE in maybe_gen_insn, at optabs.c:7341 since r272239

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90913 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/50481] builtin to reverse the bit order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50481 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from

[Bug c++/87512] Error: the type ‘const auto’ of ‘constexpr’ variable is not literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/87512] Error: the type ‘const auto’ of ‘constexpr’ variable is not literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Jun 20 15:37:35 2019 New Revision: 272512 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272512=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/87512 * g++.dg/cpp1z/inline-var7.C: New test. Added:

[Bug tree-optimization/54855] Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar operation on vector element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/88828] Inefficient update of the first element of vector registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88828 Bug 88828 depends on bug 54855, which changed state. Bug 54855 Summary: Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar operation on vector element https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855 What|Removed

[Bug c++/90947] [9/10 Regression] Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- The root cause of the problem is that initializer_zerop (elt_init) doesn't differentiate between the empty string and a null pointer in the same initializer list and returns true for the CONSTRUCTOR ({"",

[Bug tree-optimization/54855] Unnecessary duplication when performing scalar operation on vector element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54855 --- Comment #10 from hjl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: hjl Date: Thu Jun 20 15:30:54 2019 New Revision: 272511 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272511=gcc=rev Log: i386: Generate standard floating point scalar operation patterns Standard

[Bug libfortran/77278] Use LTO for libgfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278 --- Comment #31 from Thomas Koenig --- ( > this patch makes Fortran logicals to become C unsigned types of > corresponding size. I think it is better than making them signed > because the globbing will affect aliasing within Fortran programs as

[Bug c++/90947] [9/10 Regression] Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug c++/87512] Error: the type ‘const auto’ of ‘constexpr’ variable is not literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87512 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90490] [9/10 Regression] ICE on noexcept with decltype expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90490 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/90950] OpenMP clause handling rejecting references to incomplete types in templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90950 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90950] New: OpenMP clause handling rejecting references to incomplete types in templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90950 Bug ID: 90950 Summary: OpenMP clause handling rejecting references to incomplete types in templates Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/90770] Building with --enable-libstdcxx-debug and make profiledbootstrap fails with mv: cannot stat 'Makefile': No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90770 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Thu Jun 20 14:17:57 2019 New Revision: 272509 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272509=gcc=rev Log: Skip libstdc++ debug build in early bootstrap stages As mentioned in PR 90770,

[Bug c++/83413] that's a compiler bug, not something we can address. MAME is known to be buildable for other ARM targets (e.g. Raspberry Pi) right now so it appears to be an issue with whatever you're

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83413 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug libstdc++/90943] Visiting inherited variants no longer works in 9.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|SUSPENDED --- Comment #3 from

[Bug ipa/90939] ICE in meet_with, at ipa-cp.c:1073

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90939 --- Comment #1 from Martin Jambor --- The assert is there since the original implementation of IPA known bits propagation which was done for integers only. Some two months later Prathamesh replaced propagation of alignment with moving alignment

[Bug libfortran/77278] Use LTO for libgfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77278 --- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka --- Hi, this patch makes Fortran logicals to become C unsigned types of corresponding size. I think it is better than making them signed because the globbing will affect aliasing within Fortran programs as well.

[Bug sanitizer/90865] ubsan causes coverage branch errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to sshannin from comment #6) > Since we all agree that the current behavior is undesirable and since Jakub > proposes a possible solution, would it be reasonable to reopen this? > > For large

[Bug c++/90490] [9/10 Regression] ICE on noexcept with decltype expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90490 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- I have a patch now.

[Bug c++/89873] internal compiler error: unexpected expression of kind implicit_conv_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/89873] internal compiler error: unexpected expression of kind implicit_conv_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Jun 20 12:22:25 2019 New Revision: 272507 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272507=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/89873 * g++.dg/cpp1y/noexcept1.C: New test. Added:

[Bug sanitizer/90865] ubsan causes coverage branch errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90865 --- Comment #6 from sshannin at gmail dot com --- Since we all agree that the current behavior is undesirable and since Jakub proposes a possible solution, would it be reasonable to reopen this? For large (multi-hour) test suites, it would be

[Bug c++/89873] internal compiler error: unexpected expression of kind implicit_conv_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89873 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- And fixed by r270319.

[Bug fortran/90937] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1538

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE: |[7/8/9 Regression] ICE: in

[Bug fortran/90937] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1538

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Thu Jun 20 11:56:50 2019 New Revision: 272506 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272506=gcc=rev Log: 2019-06-20 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/90937 * trans-types.c

[Bug middle-end/90859] [OMP] Mappings for VLA different depending on 'target { c && { ! lp64 } }'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90859 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/90938] [9/10 Regression] Initializing array with {1} works, but not {0}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4) > Yes, the problem is that triviality isn't sufficient to decide whether the > transformation can be enabled. I think we need to check whether the type > has a

[Bug c++/90938] [9/10 Regression] Initializing array with {1} works, but not {0}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90938 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maister at archlinux dot us ---

[Bug c++/90947] Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] New: [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Bug ID: 90949 Summary: [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/90948] New: Polymorphic intrinsic assignment...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90948 Bug ID: 90948 Summary: Polymorphic intrinsic assignment... Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug c++/90947] New: Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90947 Bug ID: 90947 Summary: Simple lookup table of array of strings is miscompiled Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/90937] [7/8/9/10 Regression] ICE: in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1538

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90937 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/90925] gcc allows calling private overridden operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90925 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Right. Just because all your code examples use "template" and "private" doesn't make them related.

[Bug libstdc++/90943] Visiting inherited variants no longer works in 9.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90943 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/89296] [7 Regression] tree copy-header masking uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89296 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 89296, which changed state. Bug 89296 Summary: [7 Regression] tree copy-header masking uninitialized warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89296 What|Removed |Added