[Bug gcov-profile/96092] New: Should --coverage respect -ffile-prefix-map?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092 Bug ID: 96092 Summary: Should --coverage respect -ffile-prefix-map? Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/96091] ICE during dom: tree check: expected integer_cst, have poly_int_cst in to_wide, at tree.h:5911

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96091 --- Comment #1 from Qian Chao --- Bootstrap and tested on aarch64 platform. No new regression witnessed. Any suggestions?

[Bug tree-optimization/96091] New: ICE during dom: tree check: expected integer_cst, have poly_int_cst in to_wide, at tree.h:5911

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96091 Bug ID: 96091 Summary: ICE during dom: tree check: expected integer_cst, have poly_int_cst in to_wide, at tree.h:5911 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/96042] Reference type of std::ranges::iota is __int128 with -std=c++2a?!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96042 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4 from TC

[Bug c++/96090] New: Inconsistent querying of differring exception specifications of explicitly defaulted functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96090 Bug ID: 96090 Summary: Inconsistent querying of differring exception specifications of explicitly defaulted functions Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug jit/96089] New: Support initializers for global variables.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96089 Bug ID: 96089 Summary: Support initializers for global variables. Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Confirmed on preliminary tests (pr86551), full tests in progress: results > tomorrow). Regtested without regression.

[Bug target/94954] Wrong code generation for vec_pack_to_short_fp32 builtin for Power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Will Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d980dd19d11d7e530922bea6eafad8ff6641df7 commit r10-8430-g2d980dd19d11d7e530922bea6eafad8ff6641df7 Author: Will Schmidt

[Bug target/94954] Wrong code generation for vec_pack_to_short_fp32 builtin for Power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Will Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:972c78d3f65354aa9ea23d5e503835d68881f494 commit r9-8722-g972c78d3f65354aa9ea23d5e503835d68881f494 Author: Will Schmidt

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:29:24PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > I have the impression that there's a lot of bad things happening with > invalid input that is not always caught on x86_64. This has

[Bug target/94954] Wrong code generation for vec_pack_to_short_fp32 builtin for Power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94954 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Will Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5131f42d776eda08b3309c6596df9104b69987e9 commit r8-10346-g5131f42d776eda08b3309c6596df9104b69987e9 Author: Will Schmidt

[Bug tree-optimization/95396] [8/9/10/11 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code with -O3 for loops since r8-6511-g3ae129323d150621

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95396 --- Comment #4 from Dmitry Babokin --- Richard Sandiford, could you please have a look as author of the commit, which brought the regression? We have a bunch of other fails, which might be or might be not the same as this one. We'd like to

[Bug fortran/92967] ICE in matching_typebound_op, at fortran/interface.c:4214

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92967 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- *** Bug 96071 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/96071] ICE in matching_typebound_op, at fortran/interface.c:4233

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96071 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/95507] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wnonnull

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95507 Bug 95507 depends on bug 96021, which changed state. Bug 96021 Summary: missing -Wnonnull passing nullptr to a nonnull variadic lambda https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/96021] missing -Wnonnull passing nullptr to a nonnull variadic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/95984] [11 Regression] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered. since r11-1697-g75ff24e1920ea6b1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/95984] [11 Regression] Internal compiler error: Error reporting routines re-entered. since r11-1697-g75ff24e1920ea6b1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95984 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67a493a0b9e7ce6caba4b8bedf1f3295e477ec00 commit r11-1860-g67a493a0b9e7ce6caba4b8bedf1f3295e477ec00 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Mon

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I attached a brute-force patch that makes gfortran reject z1.f90 > without ICEing. > > Can you confirm this, or is there possibly something left to handle? Confirmed on preliminary tests (pr86551),

[Bug c++/96021] missing -Wnonnull passing nullptr to a nonnull variadic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96021 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67a493a0b9e7ce6caba4b8bedf1f3295e477ec00 commit r11-1860-g67a493a0b9e7ce6caba4b8bedf1f3295e477ec00 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Mon

[Bug fortran/96071] ICE in matching_typebound_op, at fortran/interface.c:4233

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96071 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Isn't that almost exactly a dup of PR92967? (Except for integer <-> real)

[Bug fortran/93337] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_dt_upper_string, at fortran/module.c:441

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93337 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0e66f1ddf7a7166f7a140c03e5d55286c7ef582b commit r10-8429-g0e66f1ddf7a7166f7a140c03e5d55286c7ef582b Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug libstdc++/96036] Please make std::optinal noexcept constructible when possible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96036 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/96036] Please make std::optinal noexcept constructible when possible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96036 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8992cd1892df1adb352cf5d5b279a00686d1e88a commit r11-1857-g8992cd1892df1adb352cf5d5b279a00686d1e88a Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/95303] [concepts] Member type of class template is incorrectly printed in diagnostics when it fails to satisfy a concept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95303 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/70275] -w disables all -Werror flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70275 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/96015] [10/11 Regression] gcc-10.1.0 miscompiles Python on hppa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96015 --- Comment #33 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Have I mentioned before that I think __builtin_unreachable is fundamentally broken/wrong :-) I could argue that the BARRIER in the IL is wrong because it doesn't actually line up with the semantics of

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5) > AFAICT the patch fixes the ICE for z2.f90, but not for z1.f90. You're right. I got lost in trying to work on too many PRs. I attached a

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 48839 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48839=edit Patch, part 2

[Bug fortran/96086] ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6645

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96086 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/95497] [11 Regression] ICE: concepts with a fully known / complete type in requires

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95497 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/96063] [10/11 Regression] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/96086] ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6645

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96086 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/96088] New: Range insertion into unordered_map is less effective than a loop with insertion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96088 Bug ID: 96088 Summary: Range insertion into unordered_map is less effective than a loop with insertion Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug fortran/96041] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/pr93423.f90 after r11-1792

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- On x86_64 I never reach symbol.c:2662, since the code returns from line 2659. This the closest I get to your backtrace: Breakpoint 2, free_st_labels (label=0x0) at

[Bug fortran/96087] New: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1575

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96087 Bug ID: 96087 Summary: [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1575 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/96087] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_get_symbol_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:1575

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96087 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from G.

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : AFAICT the patch fixes the ICE for z2.f90, but not for z1.f90. > Related (and presumably also pr86551) : The patch seems to also fix the ICEs

[Bug fortran/96086] New: ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6645

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96086 Bug ID: 96086 Summary: ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6645 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/96085] New: ICE in gfc_finish_var_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:694

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96085 Bug ID: 96085 Summary: ICE in gfc_finish_var_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:694 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/96084] New: ICE in free_expr0, at fortran/expr.c:446

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96084 Bug ID: 96084 Summary: ICE in free_expr0, at fortran/expr.c:446 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/96073] [11.0 regression] regression in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96073 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2151227dfe90a5fe73297c370786be98b0b090f commit r11-1855-gf2151227dfe90a5fe73297c370786be98b0b090f Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug fortran/95709] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_resolve_code, at fortran/resolve.c:11807

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95709 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:824084e72e388f81015e7f67922c75f50741355a commit r11-1854-g824084e72e388f81015e7f67922c75f50741355a Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug libstdc++/96083] New: Clang can't compile : error: use of undeclared identifier '__builtin_sprintf'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96083 Bug ID: 96083 Summary: Clang can't compile : error: use of undeclared identifier '__builtin_sprintf' Product: gcc Version: 10.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug middle-end/92929] OpenACC/OpenMP 'target' 'exit data'/'update' optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Schwinge --- (In reply to Thomas Schwinge from comment #0) > As of Tobias' recent r277631 "Fortran/OpenMP] Don't create "alloc:" for > 'target exit data'", >

[Bug c++/96063] [10/11 Regression] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 48838 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48838=edit Fix orphaned notes.

[Bug c++/96063] [10/11 Regression] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Component|libstdc++

[Bug libstdc++/96063] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 --- Comment #6 from Ian McInerney --- They are showing up when I don't have -Wsystem-headers passed in on the command line. Compiling the attached test program with `g++ -Wmismatched-tags main.cpp` shows the warnings. All that is doing is

[Bug libstdc++/96063] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 --- Comment #5 from Ian McInerney --- Created attachment 48837 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48837=edit test program

[Bug middle-end/92929] OpenACC/OpenMP 'target' 'exit data'/'update' optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92929 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/96063] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- What I meant was that I was tempted to disable them completely *even with* -Wsystem-headers. All warnings are already disabled by default in libstdc++ headers. If your build is adding -Wsystem-headers then

[Bug libstdc++/96063] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Status|NEW

[Bug target/96062] Partial register stall caused by avoidable use of SETcc, and useless MOVZBL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96062 --- Comment #2 from Joseph C. Sible --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #1) > Just declare "_Bool carry". There is no need for int. While that indeed makes my first suggestion happen, it feels unsatisfying that doing so is necessary.

[Bug c++/96068] Extra semicolon outside of a function should be allowed after c++11?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96068 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/96068] Extra semicolon outside of a function should be allowed after c++11?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96068 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92414bb6b077642eefc24080637b6bc766499391 commit r11-1852-g92414bb6b077642eefc24080637b6bc766499391 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug fortran/96073] [11.0 regression] regression in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96073 Jürgen Reuter changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11 Regression] regression |[11.0 regression] |in

[Bug libstdc++/96063] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 --- Comment #2 from Ian McInerney --- I'd be fine with disabling them for the library (although I would have hoped they would have been disabled there from the start since warnings from the library weren't requested), but as it stands currently

[Bug c++/96082] New: GCC rejects the template disambiguator with "typename"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96082 Bug ID: 96082 Summary: GCC rejects the template disambiguator with "typename" Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Bug inline-asm/96081] New: changed placement of file scope asm() contents

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96081 Bug ID: 96081 Summary: changed placement of file scope asm() contents Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/96073] [11 Regression] regression in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96073 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/96078] [10/11 Regression] flatten attribute on constructor and destructor causes spurious warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96078 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.2

[Bug fortran/96018] [9/10/11 Regression] Optimization issue with external HDF5 library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- In the last comment I meant -fdump-fortran-original, of course.

[Bug fortran/96080] New: [OpenACC] 'acc_is_present' for Fortran 'pointer'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96080 Bug ID: 96080 Summary: [OpenACC] 'acc_is_present' for Fortran 'pointer' Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openacc Severity: normal

[Bug c++/96068] Extra semicolon outside of a function should be allowed after c++11?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96068 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug fortran/96018] [9/10/11 Regression] Optimization issue with external HDF5 library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018 --- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig --- I don't have a debuggable source here at the moment, but I think there may be a problem with implicit_pure, which was either introduced by a patch in the range that Dominique provided (maybe for PR 85599?),

[Bug fortran/96041] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/pr93423.f90 after r11-1792

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96041 --- Comment #5 from Bill Seurer --- It hits that breakpoints many times and for the first many it was always 0. Then I just let it run until it ICEd and backed up the call stack a bit. Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- On the 10 branch we "optimize" the load as _19 = MEM[(double *)vectp_y.4_7 + 8B]; _17 = {0, _19}; possibly because of the gap.

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.0 Summary|[8/9/10/11

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dccbf1e2a6e544f71b4a5795f0c79015db019fc3 commit r11-1851-gdccbf1e2a6e544f71b4a5795f0c79015db019fc3 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug fortran/96018] [9/10/11 Regression] Optimization issue with external HDF5 library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #11 from

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 > > --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org > --- > (In reply to Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > So we end up calling get_negative_load_store_type for this group which seems > to only handle contiguous accesses but this one is single element

[Bug c++/96077] GCC accepts ill-legal local enum definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077 --- Comment #2 from Haoxin Tu --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > It's not ideal to provide a testcase that doesn't compile for an > accepts-invalid bug. A testcase that actually compiles is a better > demonstration that the

[Bug c++/96077] GCC accepts ill-legal local enum definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug jit/96079] Unresolved atomic builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96079 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- It seems like all these bugs with atomics in libgccjit could be a single bug report.

[Bug c++/96078] [10/11 Regression] flatten attribute on constructor and destructor causes spurious warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96078 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to work|

[Bug fortran/96018] [9/10/11 Regression] Optimization issue with external HDF5 library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.4 Priority|P3

[Bug jit/96079] New: Unresolved atomic builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96079 Bug ID: 96079 Summary: Unresolved atomic builtins Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at gcc

[Bug c++/96078] New: [10/11 Regression] flatten attribute on constructor and destructor causes spurious warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96078 Bug ID: 96078 Summary: [10/11 Regression] flatten attribute on constructor and destructor causes spurious warning Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/95153] Arrays of 'const void *' should not be copyable in C++20

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95153 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.1.1 Known to fail|10.1.1

[Bug libstdc++/95989] Segmentation fault compiling with static libraries and using jthread::request_stop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95989 --- Comment #11 from Florian Weimer --- It turns out that libc.a did not contain pthread_self until glibc 2.27. The symbol was only present in libc.so.6 (as a weird forwarder, for compatibility with long-defunct LinuxThreads). This means there

[Bug c++/96077] New: GCC accepts ill-legal local enum definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077 Bug ID: 96077 Summary: GCC accepts ill-legal local enum definition Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal

[Bug c++/95153] Arrays of 'const void *' should not be copyable in C++20

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95153 --- Comment #3 from Alisdair Meredith --- Sorry, thought I had confirmed that I agree with the analysis above - this is a (perhaps surprising) change to the specification of C++20. What is the best way to withdraw this report as invalid?

[Bug fortran/96073] [11.0 regression] regression in gfc_format_decoder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96073 --- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter --- Next step, full error message: ibtool: compile: gfortran -I../basics -I../utilities -I../testing -I../system -I../combinatorics -I../rng -I../physics -I../fastjet -I../qft -I../types -I../particles

[Bug c/96076] Compiling Glibc-2.11.1 on Raspberrypi4 fails as config.guess returns armv7l unknown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96076 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug jit/96067] __atomic_compare_exchange_n should return bool instead of void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96067 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Jonathan

[Bug c/96076] New: Compiling Glibc-2.11.1 on Raspberrypi4 fails as config.guess returns armv7l unknown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96076 Bug ID: 96076 Summary: Compiling Glibc-2.11.1 on Raspberrypi4 fails as config.guess returns armv7l unknown Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] [8/9/10/11 Regression] bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug middle-end/96044] GCC hangs in tight loop resolving __builtin_jn using MPFR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96044 --- Comment #10 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > The issue with timeouts (as in wall-clock) is that it makes builds > dependent on CPU speed which is something we generally avoid. For ISL > computations

[Bug jit/96067] __atomic_compare_exchange_n should return bool instead of void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96067 --- Comment #2 from Antoni --- Created attachment 48835 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48835=edit Reproducer for thebug Here's a reproducer for the bug. The doc says it should return bool

[Bug tree-optimization/96075] New: bogus alignment for negative step grouped access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96075 Bug ID: 96075 Summary: bogus alignment for negative step grouped access Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/96074] Associative containers never propagate allocator on copy assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96074 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-07-06

[Bug libstdc++/96074] New: Associative containers never propagate allocator on copy assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96074 Bug ID: 96074 Summary: Associative containers never propagate allocator on copy assignment Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/96063] mismatched-tags warnings in stdlib headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96063 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/96018] Optimization issue with external HDF5 library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96018 martin.schlipf at damnthespam dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #48817|0 |1 is

[Bug libstdc++/96042] Reference type of std::ranges::iota is __int128 with -std=c++2a?!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96042 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to gcc-bugs from comment #2) > I think this is too easy to say that this is not a "bug", we can also weaken > the terminology and say "potential-inconsistency". > > Technically you are right,

[Bug rtl-optimization/96031] suboptimal codegen for store low 16-bits value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96031 --- Comment #1 from zhongyunde at tom dot com --- this may can be enhance by ivopts. If the case adjusted as following, then the 'and w2, w2, 65535 ' will disappear. typedef unsigned int UINT32; typedef unsigned short UINT16; UINT16

  1   2   >