[Bug middle-end/89303] [7 Regression] memory leak with shared_ptr and enable_shared_from_this

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.3 |7.5 Summary|[7/8 Regression]

[Bug target/89290] [8 Regression] ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2286

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/89303] [7/8 Regression] memory leak with shared_ptr and enable_shared_from_this

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89303 --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 14 07:41:51 2019 New Revision: 268866 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268866=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-02-13 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug middle-end/89281] [9 Regression] gcc/optabs.c:3901:30: runtime error: shift exponent 32 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89281 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 14 07:40:33 2019 New Revision: 268865 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268865=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-02-13 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug middle-end/89246] LTO produces references to cloned symbols which the compiler failed to clone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89246 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 14 07:38:52 2019 New Revision: 268863 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268863=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-02-09 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug target/89290] [8 Regression] ICE in change_address_1, at emit-rtl.c:2286

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89290 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 14 07:39:46 2019 New Revision: 268864 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268864=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-02-13 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug middle-end/89284] gcc -fsanitize=undefined inhibits -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89284 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Feb 14 07:31:14 2019 New Revision: 268862 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268862=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/89284 * passes.def: Swap pass_ubsan and

[Bug go/89321] cross build with riscv64 gccgo compilation failed due to assert in constructor_expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321 --- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Thanks very much for reducing the test case. I sent out the fix for review at https://golang.org/cl/162618. It should be committed shortly.

[Bug other/89347] gc-sections doesn't remove unused bss section variables.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89347 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Component|c

[Bug c/89347] gc-sections doesn't remove unused bss section variables.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89347 Maninder Singh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maninder1.s at samsung dot com ---

[Bug c/89347] New: gc-sections doesn't remove unused bss section variables.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89347 Bug ID: 89347 Summary: gc-sections doesn't remove unused bss section variables. Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[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 89337, which changed state. Bug 89337 Summary: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 What|Removed |Added

[Bug testsuite/86153] [8 regression] test case g++.dg/pr83239.C fails starting with r261585

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86153 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rafael at espindo dot la --- Comment #15

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/87532] bad results from vec_extract(unsigned char, foo) dependent upon function inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532 --- Comment #15 from Bill Schmidt --- I kindasorta thought that's what I want. ;-) But now that I understand what you're saying, I believe I agree with you that this is probably a problem in our gimple folding. I am going to shut up now and

[Bug rtl-optimization/89271] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c stopped working in GCC 9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/89271] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c stopped working in GCC 9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271 --- Comment #3 from Alan Modra --- I believe this is a bug in rs6000_register_move_cost. Testing a fix.

[Bug c++/89244] __builtin_is_constant_evaluated not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89244 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor

[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 89337, which changed state. Bug 89337 Summary: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Rafael Avila de Espindola changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45704|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug go/89321] cross build with riscv64 gccgo compilation failed due to assert in constructor_expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321 --- Comment #5 from sean.wang at wdc dot com --- Created attachment 45709 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45709=edit code sample for reproducing reported error code sample for reproducing reported error is attached.

[Bug fortran/89344] uncaught programmer error: polymorphic variable is INTENT(IN) but assigned to without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/89271] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c stopped working in GCC 9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Thanks for the analysis! (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #1) > The very first ira-costs pass runs in sched1 and it generates the following > costs > r125 costs: BASE_REGS:1

[Bug fortran/88248] [F18] Bogus warning about obsolescent feature: Labeled DO statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88248 --- Comment #7 from Harald Anlauf --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-02/msg00112.html

[Bug target/89346] New: Unnecessary EVEX encoding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89346 Bug ID: 89346 Summary: Unnecessary EVEX encoding Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug libstdc++/89345] gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89345 --- Comment #4 from mib.bugzilla at gmail dot com --- thank you!

[Bug libstdc++/89345] gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89345 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Wed Feb 13 22:13:45 2019 New Revision: 268856 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268856=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/89345 Only define std::destroying_delete for C++2a Clang defines the

[Bug libstdc++/89345] gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89345 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 89300, which changed state. Bug 89300 Summary: C++ requires statement does not fail silently for const void * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89300 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/78173] Hard error subtracting pointers to incomplete type in SFINAE context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78173 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/89300] C++ requires statement does not fail silently for const void *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89300 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/78173] Hard error subtracting pointers to incomplete type in SFINAE context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78173 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||svenja.mehringer at gmail dot com

[Bug fortran/89344] uncaught programmer error: polymorphic variable is INTENT(IN) but assigned to without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 45708 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45708=edit Patch that detects and issues an error. Patch that detects and issues an error. Trunk is in stage 4, so

[Bug target/89343] Some MMX instructions aren't properly marked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89343 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/89344] uncaught programmer error: polymorphic variable is INTENT(IN) but assigned to without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 CC|

[Bug libstdc++/89345] gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89345 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I already started fixing this after your update to the phabricator update pinged me an email. I'm just going to make it conditional on __cplusplus > 201703L.

[Bug libstdc++/89345] gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89345 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/89297] [9 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression 'id' of kind overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89297 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/89229] Unnecessary ZMM in movoi_internal_avx/movti_internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45705|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/89297] [9 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression 'id' of kind overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89297 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Feb 13 21:39:18 2019 New Revision: 268854 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268854=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/89297 - ICE with OVERLOAD in template. * semantics.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/89271] gcc.target/powerpc/vsx-simode2.c stopped working in GCC 9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89271 --- Comment #1 from Vladimir Makarov --- > This is because IRA does > > r125: preferred NO_REGS, alternative NO_REGS, allocno NO_REGS > >a1(r125,l0) costs: BASE_REGS:14004,14004 GENERAL_REGS:14004,14004- >LINK_REGS:24010,24010

[Bug c++/89300] C++ requires statement does not fail silently for const void *

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89300 Casey Carter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Casey at Carter dot net --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/89283] [8/9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in stmt_could_throw_1_p)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89283 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/89336] internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c/89341] ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/89345] New: gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89345 Bug ID: 89345 Summary: gcc9 uses constexpr token, can you change to _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR ? Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/89344] uncaught programmer error: polymorphic variable is INTENT(IN) but assigned to without error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 urbanjost at comcast dot net changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug target/87532] bad results from vec_extract(unsigned char, foo) dependent upon function inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532 --- Comment #14 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- To reconcile comments 12 and 13, the subtle issue is that we don't even get into the altivec_resolve_overloaded_builtin function for the following code: vec_extract (vi, 10); The gimple

[Bug fortran/89344] New: intent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89344 Bug ID: 89344 Summary: intent Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee: unassigned at

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 --- Comment #3 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- > GCC can't see that drop3() cannot be called with name.size() < 3, and in > resize, the condition (n > size()) can only be true only when name.size() < > 3 so n - size() is unavoidably too

[Bug c++/86379] [8 Regression] Class member access of |using|'d field goes horribly awry in presence of templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86379 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[8/9

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[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 89337, which changed state. Bug 89337 Summary: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/86379] [8/9 Regression] Class member access of |using|'d field goes horribly awry in presence of templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86379 --- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Feb 13 19:08:52 2019 New Revision: 268851 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268851=gcc=rev Log: [PR86379] do not use TREE_TYPE for USING_DECL_SCOPE It's too risky to reuse the

[Bug target/89343] New: Some MMX instructions aren't properly marked

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89343 Bug ID: 89343 Summary: Some MMX instructions aren't properly marked Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/88308] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2309

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88308 --- Comment #5 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- After some more digging, it appears that the problem is move_insn_for_shrink_wrap() is deleting and re-creating insns to move them from one BB to another. The label reference count gets

[Bug c++/87322] [8 Regression] GCC fails to parse captured lambda of 2nd inner lambda if the captured lambda has "," (having 2 arguments)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87322 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[8/9

[Bug c/89342] New: ICE in maybe_default_option, at opts.c:347

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89342 Bug ID: 89342 Summary: ICE in maybe_default_option, at opts.c:347 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug go/89321] cross build with riscv64 gccgo compilation failed due to assert in constructor_expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89321 --- Comment #4 from sean.wang at wdc dot com --- The assert it reached was this I think: gcc_assert(field == NULL_TREE); Thanks, Ian. It is helpful. I think I found a way to reproduce this issue on a smaller set of code. Will provide an example

[Bug inline-asm/89334] unsupported size for integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/89341] New: ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89341 Bug ID: 89341 Summary: ICE in get, at cgraph.h:1332 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug c/89340] New: ICE in function_and_variable_visibility, at ipa-visibility.c:707

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89340 Bug ID: 89340 Summary: ICE in function_and_variable_visibility, at ipa-visibility.c:707 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/87761] [9 regression][MIPS] New FAIL: gcc.target/mips/fix-r4000-10.c -O1 start with r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- It looks more like the kind of thing that combine make_extraction, make_compound_operation, expand_compound_operation comes up with. This is not a new problem.

[Bug c/89312] snprintf warning is unparsable and not confusing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89312 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- In the future, the warnings for problems unrelated to truncation should be moved under their own options (e.g., null pointer arguments to %s should be controlled by either -Wnonnull or -Wnull-dereference).

[Bug target/89339] New: sse-movmskb-1.c fails for PPC Big Endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89339 Bug ID: 89339 Summary: sse-movmskb-1.c fails for PPC Big Endian Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal

[Bug target/89338] New: sse-cvtss2si-[12].c fails on PPC Big Endian

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89338 Bug ID: 89338 Summary: sse-cvtss2si-[12].c fails on PPC Big Endian Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code Severity: normal

[Bug inline-asm/89334] unsupported size for integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334 Stas Sergeev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug target/89229] Unnecessary ZMM in movoi_internal_avx/movti_internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #45685|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/87322] [8/9 Regression] GCC fails to parse captured lambda of 2nd inner lambda if the captured lambda has "," (having 2 arguments)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87322 --- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva --- Author: aoliva Date: Wed Feb 13 17:42:39 2019 New Revision: 268850 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268850=gcc=rev Log: [PR87322] move cp_evaluated up to tsubst all lambda parms A lambda capture

[Bug target/87532] bad results from vec_extract(unsigned char, foo) dependent upon function inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532 --- Comment #13 from Bill Schmidt --- Yes, please look at my previous comment. I believe the problem is in the VEC_EXTRACT processing in rs6000-c.c until proven otherwise... can you please try my debugging suggestion?

[Bug inline-asm/89334] unsupported size for integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #4) > Would it be possible to at least show the > correct line number where the register allocation > actually failed? gcc points to a rather "random" > line Hmm,

[Bug middle-end/89337] Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 --- Comment #1 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- The original testcase is from https://github.com/scylladb/seastar/issues/598

[Bug middle-end/89337] New: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89337 Bug ID: 89337 Summary: Bogus "exceeds maximum object size" on unreachable code Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/87761] [9 regression][MIPS] New FAIL: gcc.target/mips/fix-r4000-10.c -O1 start with r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > truncate:SI of ashift:DI looks wrong already; I'd expect ashift:SI of a > subreg? But then it would be a simplify-rtx.c issue. Though, not sure if it

[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- I just heard back from the performance lead. He indicates that they can reproduce the numbers from 9.0 trunk (compiled Feb 8, versus Feb 3 as reported by Phoronix), but the numbers from 8.2 as tagged do not

[Bug rtl-optimization/87761] [9 regression][MIPS] New FAIL: gcc.target/mips/fix-r4000-10.c -O1 start with r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87761 --- Comment #7 from Segher Boessenkool --- truncate:SI of ashift:DI looks wrong already; I'd expect ashift:SI of a subreg?

[Bug rtl-optimization/89295] [9 regression] compilation of gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001_x.c takes 30 times as long after r268404

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89295 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/89336] internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- The ICE actually isn't when processing the loop, but later on when processing the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR({.a={0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [8]=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, }}); expression. When using { r[i] = i; r[i + 8]

[Bug c++/89336] internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug rtl-optimization/89275] [9 Regression] Slowdown in mcperf on POWER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89275 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- I asked our performance team to root-cause this when the report came out. If they can reproduce we can try to bisect it.

[Bug c++/89297] [9 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression 'id' of kind overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89297 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/77304] ICE on C++ code with invalid template parameter: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:11260

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77304 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/77304] ICE on C++ code with invalid template parameter: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:11260

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77304 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Wed Feb 13 16:35:44 2019 New Revision: 268849 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268849=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/77304 * g++.dg/cpp2a/nontype-class13.C: New test. Added:

[Bug target/89229] Unnecessary ZMM in movoi_internal_avx/movti_internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89229 --- Comment #19 from H.J. Lu --- sse.md has (define_insn "mov_internal" [(set (match_operand:VMOVE 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=v,v ,v ,m") (match_operand:VMOVE 1 "nonimmediate_or_sse_const_operand" " C,BC,vm,v"))]

[Bug inline-asm/89334] unsupported size for integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334 --- Comment #4 from Stas Sergeev --- Would it be possible to at least show the correct line number where the register allocation actually failed? gcc points to a rather "random" line, and it required many hours of an engineer work to find the

[Bug target/89190] [8/9 regression][ARM] armv8-m.base invalid ldm ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89190 --- Comment #2 from Wilco --- Author: wilco Date: Wed Feb 13 16:22:25 2019 New Revision: 268848 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=268848=gcc=rev Log: [ARM] Fix Thumb-1 ldm (PR89190) This patch fixes an ICE in the Thumb-1 LDM peepholer.

[Bug bootstrap/78251] config/gettext.m4 and config/iconv.m4 contaminate CPPFLAGS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251 --- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8) > r265896 might have affected this Update: apparently not; I still had to deactivate libunwind-headers again on my latest build of gcc

[Bug target/87532] bad results from vec_extract(unsigned char, foo) dependent upon function inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87532 --- Comment #12 from kelvin at gcc dot gnu.org --- After further digging, I have uncovered some additional clues: after initial gimple expansion (i.e. the 005t.gimple trace file): vec_extract (vi, 3) is represented by __builtin_vec_ext_v4si

[Bug c++/89336] internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- r[i + 'a'] = i + 10; r[i + 'A'] = i + 10; or r[i + 'a'] = i + 10; r[i + 'A'] = r[i + 'a']; doesn't ICE.

[Bug c++/89336] internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- The current ICE started with r267253: 89336.C: In function ‘int main()’: 89336.C:16:20: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault 0x13ae0c0 crash_signal ../../gcc/toplev.c:326 0x89a0e1

[Bug ada/89333] [9 Regression] FAIL: gnat.dg/vect*.adb on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89333 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/89294] [9 regression] ICE in valid_constant_size_p, at tree.c:7524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89294 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Comment

[Bug c++/89336] internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug inline-asm/89334] unsupported size for integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you are using inline asm, you need to know what you are doing. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-8.2.0/gcc/Simple-Constraints.html#Simple-Constraints ‘r’ A register operand is allowed provided that

[Bug target/89316] ICE in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:1155

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89316 --- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #5) > > actually since all the bugs seem to be about different targets triggering > > that assert in different ways,

[Bug inline-asm/89334] unsupported size for integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89334 --- Comment #2 from Stas Sergeev --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > the same for -m64, but only al/bl/cl/dl for -m32, because there is no > sil/dil/bpl for -m32. But why does this matter? I am perfectly fine with al/bl/cl/dl,

[Bug c++/89036] [8 Regression] ICE if destructor has a requires

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89036 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression] ICE if |[8 Regression] ICE if

[Bug c++/89336] New: internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89336 Bug ID: 89336 Summary: internal compiler error when compiling a constexpr function Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

  1   2   >