[Bug libfortran/101310] Bind(C): CFI_section seems confused by pointer arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101310 --- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-July/056251.html

[Bug preprocessor/101493] Error message for too deep include seems to be off by one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101493 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/101469] wrong code with "-O2 -fPIE" for SH

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101469 --- Comment #1 from Rin Okuyama --- I've confirmed that the problem also occurs for sh3-none-elf: $ sh3-none-elf-gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/usr/pkg/cross-sh3-none-elf/bin/sh3-none-elf-gcc

[Bug fortran/82943] [F03] Error with type-bound procedure of parametrized derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82943 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/101495] New: Unnecessary vzeroupper

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101495 Bug ID: 101495 Summary: Unnecessary vzeroupper Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug tree-optimization/101494] New: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with memrchr of size 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101494 Bug ID: 101494 Summary: -Wmaybe-uninitialized false alarm with memrchr of size 0 Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/61577] [4.9.0 Regression] can't compile on hp-ux v3 ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 --- Comment #252 from The Written Word --- (In reply to Larkin Nickle from comment #249) > Then, if libcpp's Makefile is patched so that charset.c is built with -O1, I > eventually run into other errors: > >

[Bug c/101493] New: Error message for too deep include seems to be off by one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101493 Bug ID: 101493 Summary: Error message for too deep include seems to be off by one Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug jit/101491] [11 regression] /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h conflicts between different GCC installations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101491 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- I wonder why this changed recently; as Dimitry notes, this has been done the same since the initial merger of libgccjit into trunk. I'm using $(includedir). What should I be using? Thanks

[Bug target/101484] [12 Regression] trunk 20210717 ftbfs for amdgcn-amdhsa (gcn offload)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101484 Andrew Stubbs changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/101492] New: -msse4 -mgeneral-regs-only doesn't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101492 Bug ID: 101492 Summary: -msse4 -mgeneral-regs-only doesn't work Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug jit/101491] [11 regression] /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h conflicts between different GCC installations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101491 Dimitry Andric changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dimitry at andric dot com,

[Bug middle-end/71741] The program works 3 times slower compiled with g++ 5.3.1 than the same program compiled with g++ 4.8.4 with the same command (i7-5820 Haswell)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71741 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/79741] errors about struct members being of type size_t when it's not, other strange errors. cached source too.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79741 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/89702] 03 issue with SIGALRM causes program to SEGV on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89702 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.3 Resolution|---

[Bug other/83150] GCC's internal use of `abort`is unsafe in several ways

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83150 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libfortran/101310] Bind(C): CFI_section seems confused by pointer arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101310 --- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looks like 3 bugs for the price of 1! First off the loop to fill in the result dimensions in CFI_section seemed to be applying the base adjustment twice in different ways, or something like

[Bug jit/101491] New: [11 regression] /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h conflicts between different GCC installations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101491 Bug ID: 101491 Summary: [11 regression] /usr/local/include/libgccjit++.h conflicts between different GCC installations Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/83610] Come up with __builtin_expect_with_probabilty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83610 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acahalan at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c/26367] multiple levels of __builtin_expect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26367 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/41910] Very basic example failing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41910 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug target/53485] gcc -O -mavx generates illegal instruction on win64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53485 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug target/63789] g++ -m32 on solaris has trouble finding abs with int64_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63789 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug target/77953] [MIPS] ice: insn does not satisfy its constraints - __bswapsi2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77953 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/61577] [4.9.0 Regression] can't compile on hp-ux v3 ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 --- Comment #251 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2021-07-15 2:48 p.m., bugzilla-gcc at thewrittenword dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 > > --- Comment #243 from The Written Word com> --- > (In reply to

[Bug target/101205] csinv does not have an zero_extend version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug d/101490] New: ICE at convert_expr(tree_node*, Type*, Type*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101490 Bug ID: 101490 Summary: ICE at convert_expr(tree_node*, Type*, Type*) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d

[Bug tree-optimization/101479] vectorized impossible conditional floating point operations still cause traps (-ffast-math, -O3)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101479 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Simon Thornington from comment #4) > I'll add that changing close_to_zero from > > fabs(x) < 0.5 > > to > > x == 0.0 || fabs(x) < 0.5 > > everything starts to work as I'd expect again...

[Bug target/101205] csinv does not have an zero_extend version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 51169 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51169=edit full patch Patch which I sent but the company mail relay server looks broken.

[Bug middle-end/61577] [4.9.0 Regression] can't compile on hp-ux v3 ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 --- Comment #250 from Larkin Nickle --- I should probably note that my PATH is set to the standard path, appended with the PATH to whichever GCC's bin folder as well as a folder I have with some utilities: awk gawk make mksh sed tar I

[Bug middle-end/61577] [4.9.0 Regression] can't compile on hp-ux v3 ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 --- Comment #249 from Larkin Nickle --- I am still unable to replicate a proper 11.1 build against 2.36 gas. Here's my process: HP GCC 4.7.1 -> GCC 4.7.4: ../../sources/gcc-4.7.4/configure --prefix=/usr/util/toolchain/gcc-4.7.4 --w

[Bug libgcc/101489] New: Documentation gives wrong signatures for libgcc float128 routines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101489 Bug ID: 101489 Summary: Documentation gives wrong signatures for libgcc float128 routines Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/101206] [12 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vmaxv.c and gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vaddv.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101206 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- It worked here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-June/700977.html but failed here: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-June/701197.html Most likely canidate of introducing

[Bug c++/101488] Implement p1042r1 __VA_OPT__ placemarker changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101488 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- I've tried a WIP (with just 0 && or commenting out parts of current code instead of removing/cleaning up) that attempts to treat __VA_OPT__ ( ... ) with ## before __VA_OPT__ and/or after ) more similarly to

[Bug c++/101488] New: Implement p1042r1 __VA_OPT__ placemarker changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101488 Bug ID: 101488 Summary: Implement p1042r1 __VA_OPT__ placemarker changes Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug gcov-profile/101487] New: [GCOV] Wrong coverage of "switch" inside "while" loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101487 Bug ID: 101487 Summary: [GCOV] Wrong coverage of "switch" inside "while" loop Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/101486] New: Rejects valid qualification conversion involving array of unknown bound in function template argument [P0388]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101486 Bug ID: 101486 Summary: Rejects valid qualification conversion involving array of unknown bound in function template argument [P0388] Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status:

[Bug gcov-profile/101147] [GCOV] Wrong coverage with label inside "for" loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101147 --- Comment #1 from Yang Wang --- sorry,its(In reply to Yang Wang from comment #0) > $ gcc -v > Using built-in specs. > COLLECT_GCC=gcc > COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/10.2.0/lto- > wrapper > Target:

[Bug c++/101485] New: Calling std::equal with std::byte* does not use memcmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101485 Bug ID: 101485 Summary: Calling std::equal with std::byte* does not use memcmp Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/101484] New: [12 Regression] trunk 20210717 ftbfs for amdgcn-amdhsa (gcn offload)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101484 Bug ID: 101484 Summary: [12 Regression] trunk 20210717 ftbfs for amdgcn-amdhsa (gcn offload) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/101205] csinv does not have an zero_extend version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > The fix actually might be simplier than I had expected because csneg is > already implement, just need to extend it to csinv also like so: Yep that works. time

[Bug target/101205] csinv does not have an zero_extend version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- The fix actually might be simplier than I had expected because csneg is already implement, just need to extend it to csinv also like so: diff --git a/gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64.md

[Bug target/101205] csinv does not have an zero_extend version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- The problem is csinv3si_insn, csinv3_uxtw_insn2, nor csinv3_uxtw_insn3 would match as those have the zero_extend inside the if/then/else rather on the outside which is being matched here: Trying 36 -> 19:

[Bug libstdc++/101483] New: join_view::iterator's constructor missing std::move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101483 Bug ID: 101483 Summary: join_view::iterator's constructor missing std::move Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/96227] Comma operation sequencing issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96227 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3