[Bug tree-optimization/94482] [8/9 Regression] Inserting into vector with optimization enabled on x86 generates incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482 --- Comment #25 from Evan Nemerson --- Created attachment 48253 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48253=edit Similar test which fails on armv7 I'm also getting an error on armv7-a for the same original code

[Bug libstdc++/94545] New: std::to_integer(std::numeric_limits::max()) returns 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94545 Bug ID: 94545 Summary: std::to_integer(std::numeric_limits::m ax()) returns 0 Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/94544] aarch64 stlr and single total order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94544 --- Comment #1 from Paweł Różański --- Ahh Sequentially-consistent ordering only between tagged atomic, so i suppose this is expected.

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://bugzilla.kernel.org

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW

[Bug c++/94544] New: aarch64 stlr and single total order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94544 Bug ID: 94544 Summary: aarch64 stlr and single total order Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |target --- Comment #13 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #12 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) > > > > After 284r.ira: > > > > >

[Bug fortran/87923] ICE in gfc_widechar_to_char, at fortran/scanner.c:198

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87923 Fritz Reese changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/87923] ICE in gfc_widechar_to_char, at fortran/scanner.c:198

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87923 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Fritz Reese : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44facdb79f2d96ea8f5f93cfd440b3d0351d9bdb commit r10-7670-g44facdb79f2d96ea8f5f93cfd440b3d0351d9bdb Author: Fritz Reese Date: Thu

[Bug c++/94523] [10 Regression] error: 'constexpr' evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use '-fconstexpr-depth=' to increase the maximum) since r10-7490-g76f09260b7eccd6c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef529765234bea7893bd56f3ab3a2da7695f6b21 commit r10-7669-gef529765234bea7893bd56f3ab3a2da7695f6b21 Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug middle-end/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #10) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) > > > After 284r.ira: > > > > That is fine according to the rules as long as

[Bug middle-end/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) > > After 284r.ira: > > That is fine according to the rules as long as TARGET_TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION > is true. We can't turn

[Bug middle-end/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu --- I am testing this: diff --git a/gcc/lra-spills.c b/gcc/lra-spills.c index 0caa4acd3b5..bd4ee80245d 100644 --- a/gcc/lra-spills.c +++ b/gcc/lra-spills.c @@ -844,9 +844,14 @@ lra_final_code_change (void)

[Bug c++/94149] __is_constructible doesn't know about C++20 parenthesized init for arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94149 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch, rejects-valid --- Comment #4

[Bug middle-end/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7) > After 284r.ira: That is fine according to the rules as long as TARGET_TRULY_NOOP_TRUNCATION is true.

[Bug middle-end/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---

[Bug target/94359] new test case g++.dg/coroutines/torture/symmetric-transfer-00-basic.C fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Assignee|unassigned at gcc

[Bug target/94359] new test case g++.dg/coroutines/torture/symmetric-transfer-00-basic.C fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94359 --- Comment #11 from Iain Sandoe --- Created attachment 48251 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48251=edit Patch for testing coroutines: Fix compile error with symmetric transfers [PR94359] For symmetric transfers to work

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- It was caused by r5-901: commit acea91c9012e211283130eb486d83243bcbbb327 Author: Martin Jambor Date: Mon May 26 17:36:00 2014 +0200 ira.c (split_live_ranges_for_shrink_wrap): Remove bailout on subreg

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|hjl.tools at gmail dot com |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/52565] __builtin_va_arg(va, double); may fail on cortex-m3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52565 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID CC|

[Bug debug/94495] [10 Regression] Debug info size growth since r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:33c45e51b4914008064d9b77f2c1fc0eea1ad060 commit r10-7665-g33c45e51b4914008064d9b77f2c1fc0eea1ad060 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug middle-end/94543] New: missed optimization with MIN and AND with type promotion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94543 Bug ID: 94543 Summary: missed optimization with MIN and AND with type promotion Product: gcc Version: tree-ssa Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug c++/94537] Possibly wrong code with mandatory copy elision and 'this' pointer resolution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537 --- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3) > As described in my patch for PR 94034, these testcases are not guaranteed to s/patch/comment/

[Bug c++/94034] [10 Regression] Broken diagnostic: 'result_decl' not supported by dump_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #6) > So I suppose my comment on Paolo's patch was wrong, and this is only a > diagnostic quality issue after all. Ah, there is a constexpr issue to fix: if we add

[Bug c++/94537] Possibly wrong code with mandatory copy elision and 'this' pointer resolution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94537 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/94034] [10 Regression] Broken diagnostic: 'result_decl' not supported by dump_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94034 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550 --- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-04-09 1:52 p.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > John, are you set up to bisect the testcase with an additional -fno-ipa-sra > flag? I can bisect but not in a very automated way.

[Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550 --- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-04-09 1:53 p.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Might also be interesting to try other strict-align targets with -fno-ipa-sra. > But - this might also be a speciality of the

[Bug target/94538] [10 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2223 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mcpu=cortex-m23 -mslow-flash-data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538 --- Comment #4 from Wilco --- (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #3) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #2) > > This was introduced by commit e24f6408d so only in GCC10. > > Thank you for checking this! > > I am quite sure this fails in

[Bug ipa/94434] [AArch64][SVE] ICE caused by incompatibility of SRA and svst3 builtin-function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94434 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- I have proposed the patch on the mailing list: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543658.html

[Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Might also be interesting to try other strict-align targets with -fno-ipa-sra. But - this might also be a speciality of the callee-copy ABI of hpux.

[Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---

[Bug target/94538] [10 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2223 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mcpu=cortex-m23 -mslow-flash-data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538 --- Comment #3 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #2) > This was introduced by commit e24f6408d so only in GCC10. Thank you for checking this! I am quite sure this fails in gcc-9 as well: $

[Bug c++/94521] Infinite loop with decltype of function parameter of type decltype([]{})

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94521 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/93932] PowerPC vec_extract with variable element number has code regressions for V2DI/V2DF vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93932 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Michael Meissner : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:892c755eae2e2e45547395013695fdd819c297fa commit r9-8486-g892c755eae2e2e45547395013695fdd819c297fa Author: Michael

[Bug target/87163] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87163 --- Comment #15 from Bill Seurer --- Martin, are you expecting this build to have 64 bit or 128 bit long doubles? The default should be 128 as it is natively but for some reason the cross compiler is using 64. Even with that, though, the

[Bug target/94542] test gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tls/pr24428-2.c generates incorrect code on ppc64le with -mpcrel -mcpu=future -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94542 acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acsawdey at gcc dot

[Bug target/94542] New: test gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tls/pr24428-2.c generates incorrect code on ppc64le with -mpcrel -mcpu=future -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94542 Bug ID: 94542 Summary: test gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tls/pr24428-2.c generates incorrect code on ppc64le with -mpcrel -mcpu=future -O2 Product: gcc Version: 10.0

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #3) > .L8: > subl$8, %esp > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 > movq%rdi, %rsi << It should be movl %edi, %esi > shrq$32, %rdi > call

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #4 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > I don't have a -mx32 capable environment, so can't verify, but mmap/munmap > shouldn't be inlined in any way, so can you reproduce if you replace > mmap with foo

[Bug middle-end/94539] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/alias-14.c fails on gcc 10, succeeds on gcc 9, when turned into an execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka --- Bisection seems to be pointing to r10-779

[Bug target/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|ipa |target --- Comment #4 from Martin

[Bug target/94538] [10 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2223 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mcpu=cortex-m23 -mslow-flash-data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: in |[10 Regression] ICE: in

[Bug ipa/92550] [10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/ipa/ipa-sra-8.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92550 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- Almost certainly started with new IPA-SRA (r275982 or as we now call it gcc-10-3311-gff6686d2e5f). I looked at dumps from a cross-compiler and the funny bit is, however, that new IPA-SRA simply does

[Bug target/94541] [8/9/10 Regression] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com Last

[Bug libstdc++/94540] stack overflow populating std::vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94540 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-04-09

[Bug target/94541] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/94532] [10 Regression] ICE while compiling speccpu2017 blender

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532 --- Comment #4 from Dmitrij Pochepko --- Yes. It'a a diplicate of 94443

[Bug tree-optimization/94532] [10 Regression] ICE while compiling speccpu2017 blender

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94532 Dmitrij Pochepko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/94443] [10 Regression] 510.parest_r and 526.blender_r ICE: verify_ssa failed since r10-7491-gbd0f22a8d5caea8905f38ff1fafce31c1b7d33ad

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94443 Dmitrij Pochepko changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dpochepk at gmail dot com ---

[Bug middle-end/94539] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/alias-14.c fails on gcc 10, succeeds on gcc 9, when turned into an execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- Hmm, the testcase is mine so I will take a look (and make it dg-do-run :) Honza

[Bug target/94541] -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Iain Buclaw from comment #0) > A failure is not observed when: > > - The condition is: if (b.ptr && b.length) > - The condition is: if (b.length) > - The ptr and length fields in Array are

[Bug c++/94314] [10 Regression] Optimizing mismatched new/delete pairs since r10-2106-g6343b6bf3bb83c87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94314 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug target/94541] New: -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94541 Bug ID: 94541 Summary: -mx32 gcc produces wrong code passing structs by value Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/94538] [9/10 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2223 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mcpu=cortex-m23 -mslow-flash-data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug middle-end/94539] [10 Regression] gcc.dg/alias-14.c fails on gcc 10, succeeds on gcc 9, when turned into an execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/94516] [10 Regression] gnutls test ./psk-file fails since r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199af18785702e9e0548fd3ab793

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94516 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- Wonder if we couldn't let postreload.c add REG_EQUAL notes when it replaces sp += CONST_INT with sp = reg, like: --- gcc/postreload.c.jj 2020-04-08 12:03:54.600398023 +0200 +++ gcc/postreload.c

[Bug ipa/94434] [AArch64][SVE] ICE caused by incompatibility of SRA and svst3 builtin-function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94434 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #48248|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libstdc++/94540] New: stack overflow populating std::vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94540 Bug ID: 94540 Summary: stack overflow populating std::vector Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug ipa/94434] [AArch64][SVE] ICE caused by incompatibility of SRA and svst3 builtin-function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94434 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/94482] [8/9 Regression] Inserting into vector with optimization enabled on x86 generates incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/94482] [8/9/10 Regression] Inserting into vector with optimization enabled on x86 generates incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94482 --- Comment #23 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2111d5406a4ec56d6335bde779a995914d0a36d1 commit r10-7657-g2111d5406a4ec56d6335bde779a995914d0a36d1 Author: Martin Jambor Date:

[Bug middle-end/94539] New: gcc.dg/alias-14.c fails on gcc 10, succeeds on gcc 9, when turned into an execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94539 Bug ID: 94539 Summary: gcc.dg/alias-14.c fails on gcc 10, succeeds on gcc 9, when turned into an execution test Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/93790] [10 Regression] Cannot initialize reference from std::reference_wrapper using direct- or list-initialization syntax in GCC 10 c++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93790 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/93790] [10 Regression] Cannot initialize reference from std::reference_wrapper using direct- or list-initialization syntax in GCC 10 c++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93790 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:830c572428758f134bd001e699a08e622e2452c3 commit r10-7656-g830c572428758f134bd001e699a08e622e2452c3 Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug rtl-optimization/93264] [10 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_redirect_edge_and_branch_force, at cfgrtl.c:4522

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93264 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 Target Milestone|10.0

[Bug tree-optimization/91322] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-4_0.C test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/94341] mve_mov can produce ICE on latest trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94341 SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug target/94341] mve_mov can produce ICE on latest trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94341 --- Comment #2 from SRINATH PARVATHANENI --- Patch committed by Andre: commit b094133c1c5bf21ccd60c344de6f4a798140e61b Author: Andre Simoes Dias Vieira Date: Tue Apr 7 13:36:43 2020 +0100 arm: MVE: Fix constant load pattern This

[Bug tree-optimization/91322] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-4_0.C test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f60979edbfcf6ce2cbf2cb09b8af8c125ff7774f commit r10-7654-gf60979edbfcf6ce2cbf2cb09b8af8c125ff7774f Author: Jan Hubicka Date: Thu

[Bug ada/94419] missing errors for constraints on access types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94419 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW Summary|accepting wrong

[Bug ipa/94434] [AArch64][SVE] ICE caused by incompatibility of SRA and svst3 builtin-function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94434 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ipa/93369] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/pr64076 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/94523] [10 Regression] error: 'constexpr' evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use '-fconstexpr-depth=' to increase the maximum) since r10-7490-g76f09260b7eccd6c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523 --- Comment #6 from Volker Reichelt --- Please ignore my previous comment, it really only fails with -std=c++14 or -std=c++11 .

[Bug ipa/93369] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/pr64076 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369 --- Comment #20 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bb40460646ce4e6ad27a2f6795106d004d405314 commit r10-7652-gbb40460646ce4e6ad27a2f6795106d004d405314 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug c++/94523] [10 Regression] error: 'constexpr' evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use '-fconstexpr-depth=' to increase the maximum) since r10-7490-g76f09260b7eccd6c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523 --- Comment #5 from Volker Reichelt --- Btw, larger testcases also fail with -std=c++2a, so it's not restricted to -std=c++14

[Bug c++/94523] [10 Regression] error: 'constexpr' evaluation depth exceeds maximum of 512 (use '-fconstexpr-depth=' to increase the maximum) since r10-7490-g76f09260b7eccd6c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94523 Volker Reichelt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||reichelt at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug ipa/93369] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/pr64076 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369 --- Comment #19 from Jan Hubicka --- The reason why we get link failure is that we behave differently to mismatched comdats. While linker choose comdat that wins and eliminate other one we keep the other symbol and end up compiling it which

[Bug target/94538] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2223 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mcpu=cortex-m23 -mslow-flash-data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94538 Bug ID: 94538 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.c:2223 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -mcpu=cortex-m23

[Bug debug/94502] [aarch64] Missing LR register location in FDE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94502 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #7 from Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/91322] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-4_0.C test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322 --- Comment #15 from Wilco --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14) > So I'm quite sure the missed optimization isn't a regression? (can somebody > quickly check GCC 9 whether the testcase is optimized there on ARM?) It fails on both

[Bug tree-optimization/91322] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-4_0.C test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10 regression] alias-4 |[10 regression]

[Bug debug/94495] [10 Regression] Debug info size growth since r10-7515-g2c0fa3ecf70d199a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94495 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 48246 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48246=edit gcc10-pr94495.patch Untested fix. This does two things during var-tracking. One is try to reuse even more the

[Bug libstdc++/68350] std::uninitialized_copy overly restrictive for trivially_copyable types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68350 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #6) > What do you mean "if an exception is thrown"? If we call std::copy from > here, then it's because we are taking the memmove path. The whole point of the bug

[Bug ipa/93385] [10 Regression] wrong code with u128 modulo at -O2 -fno-dce -fno-ipa-cp -fno-tree-dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93385 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/94530] [9/10 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in rhs_regno (rtl.h:1924) with -Os -mcpu=falkor -mpc-relative-literal-loads -mcmodel=large

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94530 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrea Corallo : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:af19e4d0e23e5f61fc15e44a58bfa3b047854b1e commit r10-7651-gaf19e4d0e23e5f61fc15e44a58bfa3b047854b1e Author: Andrea Corallo Date:

[Bug ipa/93369] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/pr64076 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93369 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Bin Cheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed80b385418f97ef087f3f2bbe1abecffb5c9775 commit r10-7650-ged80b385418f97ef087f3f2bbe1abecffb5c9775 Author: Bin Cheng Date: Thu Apr

[Bug preprocessor/94535] __LINE__ value changed for function-like macro invocations spanning multiple lines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94535 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug ipa/92253] [10 Regression] 25% regression in 465.tonto with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92253 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 92253, which changed state. Bug 92253 Summary: [10 Regression] 25% regression in 465.tonto with LTO https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92253 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/94534] ICE declaring unnamed nested struct as friend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94534 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-04-09

[Bug tree-optimization/80635] [8/9/10 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 --- Comment #53 from Liu Hao --- For people who are not willing to turn off this warning: This warning may be suppressed by introducing a volatile member in the union that is used as the storage. Using Martin Sebor's testcase, this look likes