[Bug c++/79030] Compilation failure due to virtual memory exhaustion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79030 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/80290] [6/7/8/9 Regression] g++ uses unreasonable amount of memory compiling nested string maps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80290 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/86340] New: GCC 8.1 produces broken code for m68k with optimization levels above -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86340 Bug ID: 86340 Summary: GCC 8.1 produces broken code for m68k with optimization levels above -O1 Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/86339] New: DOM does not handle RHS COND_EXPRs well

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86339 Bug ID: 86339 Summary: DOM does not handle RHS COND_EXPRs well Product: gcc Version: tree-ssa Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/54640] arm_adjust_block_mem: signed/unsigned comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54640 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug middle-end/56281] missed VRP optimization from undefined left shift in ISO C99

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56281 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/31178] VRP can infer a range for b in a >> b and a << b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31178 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||easyhack CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/11261] Weak code generated for JPEG compression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11261 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/70924] Wrong position for "warning: missing braces around initializer [-Wmissing-braces]"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70924 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Eric

[Bug c/70618] better error messages for missing/too many arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70618 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Eric

[Bug c++/63392] poor error recovery with missing typename

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63392 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Eric

[Bug c/64743] minor issue with the location of -Wlong-long

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64743 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug go/86331] the gccgo's "go" tool looks like failing to invoke any sub go command

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331 --- Comment #4 from Stephen Kim --- Just in case, this system also includes Google's gc. With the gc, everything that fails with gccgo like this seems all fine. Thus, I think this problem might be in the top-level "go tool," which parses the

[Bug go/86331] the gccgo's "go" tool looks like failing to invoke any sub go command

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331 --- Comment #3 from Stephen Kim --- Created attachment 44327 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44327=edit strace -f go run hello.go strace -f go run hello.go

[Bug go/86331] the gccgo's "go" tool looks like failing to invoke any sub go command

model: posix\ngcc version 9.0.0 20180627 (experimental) (GCC) \nCOLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-c' '-shared-libgcc' '-mlittle-endian' '-mabi=lp64'\n /home/aion1223/install/libexec/gcc/aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu/9.0.0/go1 - -quiet -dumpbase - -mlittle-endian \"-mabi=lp64\" -auxbase - -L/home/aion1

[Bug c++/80290] [6/7/8/9 Regression] g++ uses unreasonable amount of memory compiling nested string maps

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80290 --- Comment #31 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Jun 28 00:25:21 2018 New Revision: 262204 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262204=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/80290 - memory-hog with std::pair. * pt.c

[Bug c++/86329] Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Fixed on trunk by r262199; still affects gcc-8 and gcc-7 branches.

[Bug c++/86329] Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- Author: dmalcolm Date: Wed Jun 27 23:21:46 2018 New Revision: 262199 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262199=gcc=rev Log: C++: don't offer bogus "._0" suggestions (PR c++/86329) PR c++/86329 reports

[Bug other/86338] [9 regression] hundreds of new test case failures after r262180

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86338 --- Comment #2 from Rasmus Villemoes --- I believe and hope Rainer's fix r262195 also takes care of these.

[Bug other/86338] [9 regression] hundreds of new test case failures after r262180

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86338 --- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- From some recent test results emails I see this is happened on other architectures as well (at least x86 and aarch64).

[Bug other/86338] New: [9 regression] hundreds of new test case failures after r262180

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86338 Bug ID: 86338 Summary: [9 regression] hundreds of new test case failures after r262180 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/82865] Option -fdec collides with PDT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865 --- Comment #7 from Fritz Reese --- (In reply to Fritz Reese from comment #6) > ... Though I agree -fdec should rarely be mixed with new > Fortran, it is actually simple to patch gfc_match_type() so that it does > match PDTs as a TYPE/PRINT

[Bug fortran/82865] Option -fdec collides with PDT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82865 Fritz Reese changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-11-06 00:00:00 |2018-6-27 Assignee|pault at gcc

[Bug fortran/69654] ICE in gfc_trans_structure_assign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654 Fritz Reese changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-02-04 00:00:00 |2018-6-27 --- Comment #5 from Fritz Reese

[Bug fortran/83184] Out of memory or ICE with option -fdec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83184 --- Comment #2 from Fritz Reese --- This is really two separate bugs; the first being that the locus of the variable expression is unset from match_old_style_init(), which can be seen in the simpler test case: $ cat z1.f90 integer n1(..) /1/

[Bug c++/78244] Narrowing conversion is accepted in a function template, but it should be rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78244 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug fortran/83184] Out of memory or ICE with option -fdec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83184 Fritz Reese changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/69654] ICE in gfc_trans_structure_assign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|FIXED

[Bug c++/86329] Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-06/msg01694.html

[Bug libstdc++/86280] experimental/memory_resource overflows 32 bit type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86280 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/86335] [9 regression] libstdc++ memory_resource gives error on 32-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86335 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/86333] [9 regression] libstdc++ basic_string fails to link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Was this fixed by r261892 ?

[Bug middle-end/86332] Incorrect warning with Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86332 prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/86332] Incorrect warning with Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86332 --- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Oops, looks like I messed up reducing the test-case from the original program which triggered this bug -;( Sorry for the noise.

[Bug fortran/69654] ICE in gfc_trans_structure_assign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69654 Fritz Reese changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/86337] New: [9 regression] gfortran segmentation fault in resolve.c:3119

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86337 Bug ID: 86337 Summary: [9 regression] gfortran segmentation fault in resolve.c:3119 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/57891] No diagnostic of narrowing conversion in non-type template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57891 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek

[Bug middle-end/86336] New: [9 regression] ICE in omp-low.c:7879

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86336 Bug ID: 86336 Summary: [9 regression] ICE in omp-low.c:7879 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug go/86331] the gccgo's "go" tool looks like failing to invoke any sub go command

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86331 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/86335] New: [9 regression] libstdc++ memory_resource gives error on 32-bit targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86335 Bug ID: 86335 Summary: [9 regression] libstdc++ memory_resource gives error on 32-bit targets Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/86334] New: wrong code with -march=athlon -mmemcpy-strategy=libcall:-1:noalign

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86334 Bug ID: 86334 Summary: wrong code with -march=athlon -mmemcpy-strategy=libcall:-1:noalign Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug middle-end/86332] Incorrect warning with Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86332 --- Comment #1 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 44325 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44325=edit Untested fix

[Bug libstdc++/86333] New: [9 regression] libstdc++ basic_string fails to link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86333 Bug ID: 86333 Summary: [9 regression] libstdc++ basic_string fails to link Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/86332] New: Incorrect warning with Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86332 Bug ID: 86332 Summary: Incorrect warning with Wstringop-overflow Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug go/86331] New: the gccgo's "go" tool looks like failing to invoke any sub go command

/bin/gccgo: waitid: no such file or directory; output: "Using built-in specs.\nCOLLECT_GCC=/home/aion1223/install/bin/gccgo\nTarget: aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu\nConfigured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++,go --prefix=/home/aion1223/install\nThread model: posix\ngcc version 9.0.0 2018062

[Bug c++/86329] Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Confirmed on trunk, gcc-8, and gcc-7. Doesn't affect gcc-6. The bogus dotted names are coming from anonymous enums in the header; a more minimal reproducer is: enum {}; int test() { return __0; }

[Bug c++/86329] Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/83184] Out of memory or ICE with option -fdec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83184 Fritz Reese changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-11-27 00:00:00 |2018-6-27 Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/61183] Large memory usage with smallish C++ templates (> 16GB)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61183 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/61183] Large memory usage with smallish C++ templates (> 16GB)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61183 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/69744] OpenBSD does not define max_align_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69744 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target||*-*-openbsd*

[Bug demangler/85453] OOM-Bug in cxxfilt / C++ name demangler (binuitils-2.30-15ubuntu1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85453 Simon Wörner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc.gnu.org at brn dot li --- Comment #1

[Bug target/85907] AIX: static libstdc++ and exceptions causes abort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85907 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Target|*-aix* |powerpc-ibm-aix*

[Bug c++/82507] [concepts] premature substitution into constraint of non-template member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82507 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/86328] [8/9 Regression] Runtime segfault reading an allocatable class(*) object in allocate statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- The code in comment 0 seems to have a small error: a%ll is allocated with only one element (1:1), which should probably be ten (1:10). So I wonder why it runs with gfortran-7 at all?!? In any

[Bug fortran/86330] False positive warnings about uninitialized offset/lbound/ubound when allocating on assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86330 --- Comment #1 from Tomáš Trnka --- Looks like a duplicate of bug 85855.

[Bug fortran/86330] New: False positive warnings about uninitialized offset/lbound/ubound when allocating on assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86330 Bug ID: 86330 Summary: False positive warnings about uninitialized offset/lbound/ubound when allocating on assignment Product: gcc Version: 8.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/86328] [8/9 Regression] Runtime segfault reading an allocatable class(*) object in allocate statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug c++/86327] Spurious error on non-constant expression in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86327 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/86329] New: Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86329 Bug ID: 86329 Summary: Bogus fix-it hint: note: suggested alternative: '._72' Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/86328] Runtime segfault reading an allocatable class(*) object in allocate statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328 martin changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/86328] New: Runtime segfault reading an allocatable class(*) object in allocate statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86328 Bug ID: 86328 Summary: Runtime segfault reading an allocatable class(*) object in allocate statements Product: gcc Version: 8.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/86209] Peephole does not happen because the type of zero/sign extended operands is not the same.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209 --- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to sameerad from comment #10) > > subus: > >ldr w0, [w0] > >add w0, w0, w0, lsr #16 > >uxth w0, w0 > >ret > > This is interesting way in which load store combining can be

[Bug fortran/86117] bogus warning maybe-uninitialized with class(*) and source argument in allocate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86117 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/86117] bogus warning maybe-uninitialized with class(*) and source argument in allocate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86117 --- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Here is a variation of the original example that actually runs the routine: module m type :: generic class(*), allocatable :: item end type contains subroutine sub(a, b)

[Bug fortran/86117] bogus warning maybe-uninitialized with class(*) and source argument in allocate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86117 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/86263] [9 Regression] [nvptx] casesi, tablejump

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86263 --- Comment #7 from Tom de Vries --- The pass_lower_switch has no effect. It generates a switch expansion at bb12, but the function still uses the switch at bb10: ... (gdb) call debug_function (cfun.decl, 0) _dcvt (void * ptr, char type, int

[Bug target/85769] [8/9 Regression] ICE in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2205 for -mcpu=thunderx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85769 --- Comment #5 from Tamar Christina --- Author: tnfchris Date: Wed Jun 27 08:08:48 2018 New Revision: 262178 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=262178=gcc=rev Log: Add SIMD to REG pattern for movhf without armv8.2-a support for AArch64 This

[Bug target/86209] Peephole does not happen because the type of zero/sign extended operands is not the same.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86209 --- Comment #10 from sameerad at gcc dot gnu.org --- > subus: >ldr w0, [w0] >add w0, w0, w0, lsr #16 >uxth w0, w0 >ret This is interesting way in which load store combining can be enhanced further. I will try to figure out

[Bug c++/86320] very long compilation time for std::array, 1024 * 1024>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86320 --- Comment #7 from Ulya --- Thank you, that was really fast!