[Bug libfortran/99210] X editing for reading file with encoding='utf-8'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99210 --- Comment #4 from Jerry DeLisle --- I think the patch works fine as is as far as I can tell. There will be a similar fix for writing files with encoding='utf8'

[Bug testsuite/100407] New: New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 Bug ID: 100407 Summary: New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/100334] atomic::notify_one() sometimes wakes wrong thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334 Thomas Rodgers changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #8 from Thomas

[Bug libstdc++/100334] atomic::notify_one() sometimes wakes wrong thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334 Thomas Rodgers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/83819] [meta-bug] missing strlen optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83819 Bug 83819 depends on bug 91914, which changed state. Bug 91914 Summary: [9 Regression] Invalid strlen optimization https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/91914] [9 Regression] Invalid strlen optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/91914] [9 Regression] Invalid strlen optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91914 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:176e7fa198dd50aca4c882c74fc8f4386a3f9131 commit r9-9501-g176e7fa198dd50aca4c882c74fc8f4386a3f9131 Author: Martin Sebor

[Bug libstdc++/100334] atomic::notify_one() sometimes wakes wrong thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334 Thomas Rodgers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING

[Bug c++/100405] Add implicit 'return *this;' in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/100405] Add implicit 'return *this;' in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Another option would be to add an implicit __builtin_trap() there. Failing hard is probably preferable to the kind of surprising behaviour you get from the optimizers today.

[Bug testsuite/100355] gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/cdivchkld.c needs fmaxl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100355 --- Comment #2 from Christophe Lyon --- Tried that, but it's not taken into account. ieee.exp uses c-torture-execute, maybe that function does not honor dg directives? (none of the tests under ieee/ has a dg- directive)

[Bug c++/46224] Enhancement: Issue warning when matching placement delete operator is missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46224 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2018-10-01 00:00:00 |2021-5-3 Blocks|87403

[Bug middle-end/100406] bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-05-03 Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/100406] New: bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100406 Bug ID: 100406 Summary: bogus/missing -Wmismatched-new-delete Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug libstdc++/100180] experimental/net/internet/address/v6/members.cc fails on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100180 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/100286] experimental/net/internet/socket/opt.cc fails on arm-eabi (r12-137)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100286 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/70834] Incorrect warning for placement new when conditionally used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70834 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-01-03 00:00:00 |2021-5-3 Blocks|

[Bug libstdc++/100351] experimental/net/internet/tcp.cc fails on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100351 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/100321] [OpenMP][nvptx, SIMT] (Con't) Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/100321] [OpenMP][nvptx, SIMT] (Con't) Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f87990a2a8fc9e20d30462a0a4c9047582af0cd9 commit r12-395-gf87990a2a8fc9e20d30462a0a4c9047582af0cd9 Author: Tom de Vries Date: Mon

[Bug tree-optimization/100366] spurious warning - std::vector::clear followed by std::vector::insert(vec.end(), ...) with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366 --- Comment #3 from Sam Varshavchik --- If the warning is justified then something else isn't adding up. I double-checked (with cppreference.com) something that I was pretty sure of: and an insert() at the end() iterator is valid. The

[Bug middle-end/100403] Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/100403] Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Component|c

[Bug c++/100405] Add implicit 'return *this;' in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|missing return assignment |Add implicit 'return

[Bug c++/85523] Add fix-it hint for missing return statement in assignment operators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85523 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug c++/100405] missing return assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/100405] New: missing return assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100405 Bug ID: 100405 Summary: missing return assignment Product: gcc Version: 10.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/100403] Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 --- Comment #2 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov --- > undefined if msg is not in the range of x.rec[0]...x.rec[RECLEN] Indeed for the segmented data address space. But in most systems it's linear, and the warning is then architecture

[Bug libstdc++/100290] join_view::_Iterator::operator++ copies _M_parent->_M_inner when _S_ref_is_glvalue is false

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100290 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/100290] join_view::_Iterator::operator++ copies _M_parent->_M_inner when _S_ref_is_glvalue is false

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100290 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b81834eaf85d5c4e0df8e4fc2307cbdd083dea6c commit r10-9789-gb81834eaf85d5c4e0df8e4fc2307cbdd083dea6c Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug middle-end/100401] Bogus -Wformat-overflow for a trailing zero-length array of a union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401 --- Comment #2 from lavr at ncbi dot nlm.nih.gov --- > GCC warnings are designed to "report constructions that are not inherently > erroneous but that are risky or suggest there may have been an error." Certainly, but the [0] size trailing

[Bug libstdc++/100384] Compiling in c++17 mode breaks compilation of functions named visit()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |--- Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/100384] Compiling in c++17 mode breaks compilation of functions named visit()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Possibly, but it needs to be constrained for p2162 anyway, which I'm doing via the return type.

[Bug tree-optimization/100404] Unable to disable removal of null pointer checks for nonnull function arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I'm pretty sure what the docs mean is that the compiler will not optimise the caller to assume that anything passed to the function is non-null. Inside the function it will still assume the parameter is

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #16 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #15) > The problem is is indeed gone. I need to analyze the assembly fully how it > prevents the bad case. e.g. I'm still not comfortable seeing the loop > entered

[Bug middle-end/100401] Bogus -Wformat-overflow for a trailing zero-length array of a union

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.1.0 Summary|Bogus

[Bug c++/100362] [11/12 Regression] ICE with Boost.Asio async_initiate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/100362] [11/12 Regression] ICE with Boost.Asio async_initiate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a32b7d03210f1763a5ccd017181ad88bd95b07d1 commit r11-8344-ga32b7d03210f1763a5ccd017181ad88bd95b07d1 Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug c/100404] New: Unable to disable removal of null pointer checks for nonnull function arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100404 Bug ID: 100404 Summary: Unable to disable removal of null pointer checks for nonnull function arguments Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/100403] Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note, the following condition in the if statement if (x.rec <= msg && msg < x.rec + sizeof(x)) Is undefined if msg is not in the range of x.rec[0]...x.rec[RECLEN] .

[Bug c++/86355] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] Internal compiler error with pack expansion and fold expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86355 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/100403] New: Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100403 Bug ID: 100403 Summary: Bogus "function may return address of local variable" warning Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/100391] 128 bit arithmetic --- many unnecessary instructions when extracting smaller parts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100391 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Component|target

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #15 from Vineet Gupta --- (In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #14) > (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #13) > > Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch > > attached), outcome is the same >

[Bug c++/100372] [11/12 Regression] ICE with variadic template template, internal compiler error: in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1544

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100372 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100396] [11.1 regression] The template function overload is not selected correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to vopl from comment #2) > Please, try this, also failed > > /0/1/2/3/4/5/6/// > //7 > template struct Checker > { > using Some =

[Bug tree-optimization/100366] spurious warning - std::vector::clear followed by std::vector::insert(vec.end(), ...) with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100366 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #14 from Linus Torvalds --- (In reply to Vineet Gupta from comment #13) > Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch > attached), outcome is the same Vineet - it's not the ldd/std that is necessarily

[Bug c++/100344] [12 Regression] compiler ICE internal compiler error: in build_call_a, at cp/call.c:38

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/100402] Crash in longjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402 --- Comment #3 from Hannes Domani --- Created attachment 50745 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50745=edit output of -fdump-tree-optimized

[Bug target/100402] Crash in longjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402 --- Comment #2 from Hannes Domani --- Created attachment 50744 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50744=edit assembly (-S)

[Bug target/100402] Crash in longjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402 --- Comment #1 from Hannes Domani --- Created attachment 50743 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50743=edit preprocessed code (-E)

[Bug target/100402] New: Crash in longjmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100402 Bug ID: 100402 Summary: Crash in longjmp Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee:

[Bug c++/100362] [11/12 Regression] ICE with Boost.Asio async_initiate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2a6fc19e655e696bf0df9b7aaedf9848b23f07f3 commit r12-392-g2a6fc19e655e696bf0df9b7aaedf9848b23f07f3 Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug c++/100344] [12 Regression] compiler ICE internal compiler error: in build_call_a, at cp/call.c:38

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100344 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d commit r12-391-geef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug c++/68942] overly strict use of deleted function before argument-dependent lookup (ADL)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d commit r12-391-geef4fa6968ae0682679c27dae06409db3d113d5d Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #13 from Vineet Gupta --- Sorry the workaround proposed by Alexander doesn't seem to cure it (patch attached), outcome is the same mov lp_count,r13;5 #, bnd.65 lp @.L201 ; lp_count:@.L50->@.L201

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #12 from Vineet Gupta --- Created attachment 50742 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50742=edit kernel patch as proposed on comment #7

[Bug tree-optimization/94589] Optimize (i<=>0)>0 to i>0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94589 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #50719|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/100394] wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c/100401] New: Bogus -Wformat-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100401 Bug ID: 100401 Summary: Bogus -Wformat-overflow warning Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug tree-optimization/100400] New: ICE in visit_loops_in_gang_single_region

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100400 Bug ID: 100400 Summary: ICE in visit_loops_in_gang_single_region Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openacc Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug c++/100055] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE on invalid requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/100370] [11/12 Regression] Incorrect warning for placement new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100370 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||100399 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100055] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE on invalid requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100055 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9b6890d0b6aa030b307fdb620f8c53ed59ca3b5 commit r12-389-gc9b6890d0b6aa030b307fdb620f8c53ed59ca3b5 Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/100399] bogus/missing -Wplacement-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100399] New: bogus/missing -Wplacement-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100399 Bug ID: 100399 Summary: bogus/missing -Wplacement-new Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/100334] atomic::notify_one() sometimes wakes wrong thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100334 Thomas Rodgers changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #50728|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/100398] New: [12 Regression] ICE in gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch, at tree-cfg.c:6082

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100398 Bug ID: 100398 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gimple_redirect_edge_and_branch, at tree-cfg.c:6082 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 100395, which changed state. Bug 100395 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/100395] Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||88443 Component|c

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #11 from Linus Torvalds --- (In reply to Linus Torvalds from comment #10) > > This particular code comes > from some old version of zlib, and I can't test because I don't have the ARC > background to make any sense of the

[Bug c++/100396] [11.1 regression] The template function overload is not selected correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396 --- Comment #2 from vopl at bk dot ru --- Please, try this, also failed /0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7 template struct Checker { using Some = decltype(F{}(Args{}...)); }; template concept

[Bug tree-optimization/100363] gcc generating wider load/store than warranted at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100363 --- Comment #10 from Linus Torvalds --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9) > > Note alignment has nothing to do with strict-aliasing (-fno-strict-aliasing > you mean btw). I obviously meant -fno-strict-aliasing, yes. But I think

[Bug c++/100362] [11/12 Regression] ICE with Boost.Asio async_initiate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka --- If we remove the unneeded 'this' capture, then it's a rejects-valid bug: template struct Qux { struct A { } a_; void AsyncOp() { [](auto) { struct Grault : decltype(a_) {}; Grault

[Bug testsuite/100397] New: New test case libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90 fails erratically since its introduction in r12-20

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100397 Bug ID: 100397 Summary: New test case libgomp.fortran/depobj-1.f90 fails erratically since its introduction in r12-20 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/100374] Type-constraints of member function templates should not be substituted into during implicit instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100374 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c++/100368] Missing guaranteed elision in constexpr evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100368 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/100396] [11.1 regression] The template function overload is not selected correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/93031] Wish: When the underlying ISA does not force pointer alignment, option to make GCC not assume it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93031 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Monakov --- In comment #2 I touched upon a potentially more practical way to offer -fno-strict-alignment: Run early work with ABI alignments: compute __alignof correctly, lay out composite types as required by ABI,

[Bug libstdc++/100384] Compiling in c++17 mode breaks compilation of functions named visit()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/100396] New: [11.1 regression] The template function overload is not selected correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100396 Bug ID: 100396 Summary: [11.1 regression] The template function overload is not selected correctly Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug c++/100362] [11/12 Regression] ICE with Boost.Asio async_initiate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100362 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/100394] wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394 --- Comment #4 from Michael Matz --- That then still shows problems with the pure function and -O2, but with standard C++ this then works: struct S { int foo(int i) const { if (i) throw 42; return 0; } }; int __attribute__((noinline))

[Bug c++/100367] [11/12 Regression] Internal compiler error when std::lexicographical_compare_three_way third and fourth argument are reverse iterators

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100367 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Internal compiler error |[11/12 Regression] Internal

[Bug c/100395] New: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100395 Bug ID: 100395 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overflow warning Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug middle-end/93644] [10/11/12 Regression] spurious -Wreturn-local-addr with PHI of PHI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93644 Jochen Roemmler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jochen447 at concept dot de ---

[Bug middle-end/100394] wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|3.4.6, 4.3.5| CC|

[Bug target/100375] [12 Regression] trunk 20210501 ftbfs for nvptx-none

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100375 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- I need to fix libstdc++ to accept the code with a deprecated warning, rather than reject it. I think it only rejects it with -pedantic but it should still be fixed to work until the deprecated constructor

[Bug middle-end/100394] wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Classically it needs two DCE passes, the first removes the call LHS, the second then no longer considers the call necessary because of EH. But even with that fixed there are subsequent passes breaking

[Bug middle-end/100394] wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- See also https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569429.html

[Bug middle-end/100394] New: wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100394 Bug ID: 100394 Summary: wrong-code with EH and pure/const functions Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/100335] Using statement of a ref-qualified method from base class: method not callable on derived object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100335 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Like I already suggested in comment 3: Either the overloads should conflict because of [over.load]/2.3 (and the definition of Derived should be ill-formed) or they should be hidden and not visible in

[Bug libstdc++/100384] Compiling in c++17 mode breaks compilation of functions named visit()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100384 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/100387] ranges::minmax compares moved-out value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100387 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at gcc

[Bug c++/100288] [11/12 Regression] g++-11 internal error and fails to precompile a concept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Frank B. Brokken from comment #4) > Dear ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org, you wrote: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288 > > > > Patrick Palka changed: > > > >

[Bug tree-optimization/100393] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Very slow compilation of switch statement with thousands of cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- I guess that's already done, so it has to be fixed in other ways, like by keeping the partial sum when decreasing the size in for (unsigned j = 0; j < i; j++) { if (min[j].m_count

[Bug tree-optimization/100393] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Very slow compilation of switch statement with thousands of cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Samples: 847K of event 'cycles:u', Event count (approx.): 839745061761 Overhead Samples Command Shared Object Symbol 95.05%804298 cc1 cc1

[Bug tree-optimization/100393] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Very slow compilation of switch statement with thousands of cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100393 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libgomp/100352] [11/12 Regression] libgomp.fortran/async_io_1.f90 -O0 execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100352 --- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #8) > Follow up to PR100352, That's this PR and not the one which caused it. Correct is (comment #6): > Issue introduced for PR99529 in >

  1   2   >