[Bug target/90723] pr88598-2.c segfaults with -msve-vector-bits=256

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90723 --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #1) > Author: prathamesh3492 > Date: Sat Jul 13 08:28:33 2019 > New Revision: 273466 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=273466=gcc=rev > Log: > 2019-07-15

[Bug target/67183] Darwin stub vs. non_lazy pointer ordering incompatible with clang assembler.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67183 --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Sat Oct 12 19:41:50 2019 New Revision: 276926 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276926=gcc=rev Log: [Darwin, machopic 6/n] Fix for 67183 When we're using the LLVM-based assembler (the

[Bug target/67183] Darwin stub vs. non_lazy pointer ordering incompatible with clang assembler.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67183 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||assemble-failure, |

[Bug middle-end/26241] [7/8/9 Regression] None of the IPA passes are documented in passes.texi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241 --- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On October 12, 2019 6:20:16 AM GMT+02:00, "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241 > >Eric Gallager changed: > > What|Removed

[Bug fortran/92072] [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Also adding a blank or a comment after the public makes the ICE go away.

[Bug ada/91995] gnat miscompilation and bootstrap failure on m68k-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/92070] [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 --- Comment #6 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #5) > Fixed. r267903 FAIL and r267907 PASS for me with original problem -- LLVM-current build Thanks

[Bug ada/91995] gnat miscompilation and bootstrap failure on m68k-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Sat Oct 12 14:51:26 2019 New Revision: 276919 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276919=gcc=rev Log: PR ada/91995 * sem_util.ads (Defining_Entity): Remove 2nd and

[Bug ada/91995] gnat miscompilation and bootstrap failure on m68k-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995 --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Sat Oct 12 14:50:05 2019 New Revision: 276918 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276918=gcc=rev Log: PR ada/91995 * sem_ch8.adb (Chain_Use_Clause): Remove second

[Bug ada/91995] gnat miscompilation and bootstrap failure on m68k-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Sat Oct 12 14:49:21 2019 New Revision: 276917 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276917=gcc=rev Log: PR ada/91995 * sem_ch8.adb (Chain_Use_Clause): Remove second

[Bug ada/91995] gnat miscompilation and bootstrap failure on m68k-linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91995 --- Comment #5 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Sat Oct 12 14:47:34 2019 New Revision: 276916 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276916=gcc=rev Log: PR ada/91995 * sem_ch8.adb (Chain_Use_Clause): Remove second

[Bug c++/91428] Please warn on if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91428 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Well, but perhaps the right fix is removing "std::is_constant_evaluated ()" instead?

[Bug c++/92077] Multiple independent functions degrades optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92077 --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse --- It is quite natural for the compiler to inline functions that are only called once (it won't take more space) (although the compiler doesn't actually know that the function isn't also called in another TU)

[Bug fortran/90297] gcc/fortran/resolve.c: 2 * possibly redundant code ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297 --- Comment #7 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- At least it is one of the less harmful bits of code that I have introduced :-) Yes, it can go. Thanks Paul On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 01:18, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > >

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Sat Oct 12 12:21:45 2019 New Revision: 276915 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276915=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/92063 * tree-eh.c (operation_could_trap_helper_p)

[Bug c++/92078] error: 'struct std::ptr' redeclared with different access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92078 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/92078] New: error: 'struct std::ptr' redeclared with different access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92078 Bug ID: 92078 Summary: error: 'struct std::ptr' redeclared with different access Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid

[Bug c++/92077] Multiple independent functions degrades optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92077 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Looks like the "independent" function changes inlining decisions. Operator+ is not inlined when G is defined. This might be a heuristic issue of the translational unit growing too big with the inlining.

[Bug c++/92076] strange strcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92076 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/92077] New: Multiple independent functions degrades optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92077 Bug ID: 92077 Summary: Multiple independent functions degrades optimizations Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/92076] strange strcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92076 --- Comment #3 from georg --- Hi Im greatly sorry I now see my obvious stupid bugg. Yr comment was right on str is tpo short, it worked be chance ond luck in the previous lovation which misslead my thinking. Sorry. Can i terminate delete report

[Bug c++/92076] strange strcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92076 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Try using strncpy instead as you might see the behavior that you are expecting.

[Bug c++/92076] strange strcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92076 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/92076] New: strange strcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92076 Bug ID: 92076 Summary: strange strcpy Product: gcc Version: 6.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug target/92075] New: extracting element from NEON float-vector moves to/from integer register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92075 Bug ID: 92075 Summary: extracting element from NEON float-vector moves to/from integer register Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #39 from Jiu Fu Guo --- For small loop (1-2 stmts), in forms of GIMPLE and RTL, it would be around 5-10 instructions: 2-4 insns per stmt, ~4 insns for idx. With current unroller, here is a statistic on spec2017. Using --param

[Bug c++/91428] Please warn on if constexpr (std::is_constant_evaluated())

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91428 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- Would it make sense to add a fixit hint that removes "constexpr"? I think that might make the warning a bit clearer for some users. On the other hand, if is_constant_evaluated gets removed by P1938, there is

[Bug target/63891] [7 regression] Failure of darwin-weakimport-3.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63891 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/79885] --with-build-sysroot= does not get honored throughout the build (fix-includes, CPP, CXXCPP, configure-stage2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79885 --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia from comment #13) I fully understand that a (perhaps the most) common use-case is build=host=target. However, we want the other use-cases to work (for example, I

[Bug bootstrap/87030] GCC fails to build with Xcode 10, attempting an impossible multilib build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87030 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/91775] Can eliminate compare from loop with known number of iterations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91775 --- Comment #7 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > probably also a missed-optimization for the new doloop stuff? Thanks for the information! This looks a good case with zero doloop_cost_for_address, but the