[Bug tree-optimization/94779] Bad optimization of simple switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779 --- Comment #5 from Gabriel Ravier --- Going to take a quick look at how it gets optimized in the tree passes. This is the first case : int f1(unsigned x) { if (x >= 2) __builtin_unreachable(); switch (x) { case 0:

[Bug c++/94781] version 9.3 g++ compilation time is slower by 20% or much more (closer to 50 % sometimes) in comparison to v7.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781 --- Comment #3 from ishikawa,chiaki --- https://send.firefox.com/download/bdf77223953903fa/#WMrJbMYdsL7AXf2vXYm82g I uploaded the file, UnifiedBindings23-v7.cpp, to the link above. It is huge as I explained. Approximately 28MB. The compiler

[Bug lto/94659] [8/9 Regression] Missing symbol with LTO and target_clones since r8-1461-g871cc215f7507cbe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94659 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug lto/94659] [8/9 Regression] Missing symbol with LTO and target_clones since r8-1461-g871cc215f7507cbe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94659 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.0 Summary|[8/9/10

[Bug tree-optimization/94779] Bad optimization of simple switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization

[Bug lto/94659] [8/9/10 Regression] Missing symbol with LTO and target_clones since r8-1461-g871cc215f7507cbe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94659 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9dbb436b70938ca2b1ddf0cf2d5ffe2e5725dea commit r10-7982-gb9dbb436b70938ca2b1ddf0cf2d5ffe2e5725dea Author: Martin Liska Date: Mon

[Bug tree-optimization/94779] Bad optimization of simple switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779 --- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier --- Just fyi : When I said "gcc fails to optimize this to `return x + 1`, instead opting for some rather weird code generation (involving `sbb` on x86)" the "weird code generation" I was referring to is the

[Bug tree-optimization/94779] Bad optimization of simple switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779 --- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier --- It's fully optimized ? I don't see how. This is exactly what I was complaining about : It could be further optimized to leal1(%rdi), %eax ret but it isn't

[Bug tree-optimization/94775] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1734 since r8-4668-g8a5ee94a082b3d48

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/94779] Bad optimization of simple switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID CC|

[Bug c/94780] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in walk_body at gcc/tree-nested.c:713 since r6-3632-gf6f69fb09c5f81df

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780 --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška --- Confirmed, started with r6-3632-gf6f69fb09c5f81df.

[Bug c/94780] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in walk_body at gcc/tree-nested.c:713 since r6-3632-gf6f69fb09c5f81df

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/94781] version 9.3 g++ compilation time is slower by 20% or much more (closer to 50 % sometimes) in comparison to v7.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/94783] New: Abs-equivalent pattern is not recognized as abs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94783 Bug ID: 94783 Summary: Abs-equivalent pattern is not recognized as abs Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug ipa/94762] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in is_tm_irrevocable) since r7-1710-g849a76a5a20db383

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94762 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/94782] New: Simple multiplication-related arithmetic not optimized to direct multiplication

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94782 Bug ID: 94782 Summary: Simple multiplication-related arithmetic not optimized to direct multiplication Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/94781] version 9.3 g++ compilation time is slower by 20% or much more (closer to 50 % sometimes) in comparison to v7.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781 --- Comment #1 from ishikawa,chiaki --- BTW, UnifiedBindings23.cpp is huge. It is about 28MB and more than 3MB compressed (by gzip). I can send the compressed file by e-mail to anyone interested in this issue. As the name suggests, the source

[Bug target/91518] [9/10 Regression] segfault when run CPU2006 465.tonto since r263875

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91518 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6955089db6c3aa63c276704159ffad1ef15d256 commit r10-7981-gf6955089db6c3aa63c276704159ffad1ef15d256 Author: Xionghu Luo Date: Sun

[Bug c++/94781] New: version 9.3 g++ compilation time is slower by 20% or much more (closer to 50 % sometimes) in comparison to v7.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94781 Bug ID: 94781 Summary: version 9.3 g++ compilation time is slower by 20% or much more (closer to 50 % sometimes) in comparison to v7. Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c/94780] New: [9/10] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94780 Bug ID: 94780 Summary: [9/10] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9/10 Regression] |[8/9 Regression] Explicit

[Bug c++/90320] [8/9/10 Regression] Explicit constructor called implicitly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90320 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:feb801f62239528bca2cfb6c3abd70d434b69c0a commit r10-7979-gfeb801f62239528bca2cfb6c3abd70d434b69c0a Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug d/89418] D test cases fail on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89418 --- Comment #5 from Iain Buclaw --- For now, I've the tests will return UNSUPPORTED, as they depend on full libphobos support that powerpc* targets simply don't have (because of incomplete or lacking any support in std.math and

[Bug d/94777] internal compiler error: in assign_temp, at function.c:984

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94777 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug d/94777] internal compiler error: in assign_temp, at function.c:984

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94777 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2370bdbb0b29b14401d8508d846c0e01c64d82fc commit r10-7975-g2370bdbb0b29b14401d8508d846c0e01c64d82fc Author: Iain Buclaw Date: Sun

[Bug d/89418] D test cases fail on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89418 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:873b5de87c3186d85bb497b0f9c13b8c5e425712 commit r10-7976-g873b5de87c3186d85bb497b0f9c13b8c5e425712 Author: Iain Buclaw Date: Mon

[Bug tree-optimization/94779] New: Bad optimization of simple switch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94779 Bug ID: 94779 Summary: Bad optimization of simple switch Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/94770] class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94770 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Bence Szabó from comment #4) > As a remark for 'same code with -std=c++14 and -std=c++17 here', I can > confirm, the example you provided also produces same assembly for me in > c++14 and c++17.

[Bug c/94773] Unhelpful warning "right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]" on unreachable code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94773 Niels Möller changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/4210] should not warning with dead code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4210 Niels Möller changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nisse at lysator dot liu.se --- Comment

[Bug target/94770] class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94770 --- Comment #4 from Bence Szabó --- As a remark for 'same code with -std=c++14 and -std=c++17 here', I can confirm, the example you provided also produces same assembly for me in c++14 and c++17. Also compiling t032 with only c++14 or only c++17

[Bug target/94770] class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94770 --- Comment #3 from Bence Szabó --- Created attachment 48379 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48379=edit t032

[Bug target/94770] class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94770 --- Comment #2 from Bence Szabó --- Yes there's a T(30,struct{}a[1];,) in t032. Indeed the fail happens on a variadic function (void check30va(int i, ...)). I dig in some more and it turns out all the tests listed crash. I've attached the

[Bug fortran/91862] [9/10 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91862 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Replacing character(3) :: a(3) = 'abc' by character(3), parameter :: a(3) = 'abc' ! No ICE also avoids the ICE.

[Bug fortran/93794] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_component_ref, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/93340] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in check_constant_initializer, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93340 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- AFAICS the code in comment#0 is non-standard: % gfc-trunk foo.f90 -std=f2018 z1.f90:2:20: 2 |character c(2) /'a', 'b'(1:1)/ |1 Error: GNU Extension: Old-style

[Bug fortran/93834] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in trans_caf_is_present, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:8469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code ---

[Bug c++/94772] [10 Regression] constructing constexpr variables fail with delegated constexpr constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94772 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug jit/94778] New: All jit tests failed with multilib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94778 Bug ID: 94778 Summary: All jit tests failed with multilib Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: jit

[Bug c/94773] Unhelpful warning "right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]" on unreachable code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94773 Vincent Lefèvre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---

[Bug tree-optimization/94775] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1734

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775 --- Comment #1 from Roman Zhuykov --- Additionally checked that vanilla gcc-9.3.0 version is also affected.

[Bug c++/94752] [coroutines] compiler ICE with coroutine with unnamed parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94752 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:29f55115583a0dab6cbac749c4f0804fd88e9536 commit r10-7973-g29f55115583a0dab6cbac749c4f0804fd88e9536 Author: Iain Sandoe Date: Sun

[Bug fortran/94769] Possible use of uninitialized variable num

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- compare_to_allowed_values doesn't set *num most of the time even when returning non-zero, especially if warn is true.

[Bug fortran/94769] Possible use of uninitialized variable num

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug d/94777] New: internal compiler error: in assign_temp, at function.c:984

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94777 Bug ID: 94777 Summary: internal compiler error: in assign_temp, at function.c:984 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/94776] New: lto1: internal compiler error: in add_symbol_to_partition_1, at lto/lto-partition.c:153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94776 Bug ID: 94776 Summary: lto1: internal compiler error: in add_symbol_to_partition_1, at lto/lto-partition.c:153 Product: gcc Version: lto Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/94775] New: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1734

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94775 Bug ID: 94775 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in strip_typedefs, at cp/tree.c:1734 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/94770] class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94770 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/94774] New: Uninitialized variable retval in function try_substitute_return_value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94774 Bug ID: 94774 Summary: Uninitialized variable retval in function try_substitute_return_value Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/94773] New: Unhelpful warning "right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]" on unreachable code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94773 Bug ID: 94773 Summary: Unhelpful warning "right shift count >= width of type [-Wshift-count-overflow]" on unreachable code. Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status:

[Bug c++/94772] [10 Regression] constructing constexpr variables fail with delegated constexpr constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94772 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-04-26

[Bug fortran/94737] BIND(C) names are not always treated as case sensitive.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94737 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- So, test case committed. Thanks for the bug report! Even though it turned out to be invalid, it still ended up making the compiler better.

[Bug fortran/94737] BIND(C) names are not always treated as case sensitive.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94737 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:870923cd48e1e715120ff68425437e5b346283a1 commit r10-7972-g870923cd48e1e715120ff68425437e5b346283a1 Author: Thomas Koenig Date:

[Bug fortran/93956] Wrong array creation with p => array_dt(1:n)%component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93956 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथà¤nig : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2bf7698e0d2312410e7aaab5ee8447e25d8bf8a6 commit r10-7971-g2bf7698e0d2312410e7aaab5ee8447e25d8bf8a6 Author: Thomas Koenig Date:

[Bug fortran/94737] BIND(C) names are not always treated as case sensitive.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94737 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Lee Busby from comment #4) > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > > (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #2) > > > Correction, this is not a regression. > > > > > > F2018 has, in 19.2,

[Bug c++/94772] New: [10 Regression] constructing constexpr variables fail with delegated constexpr constructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94772 Bug ID: 94772 Summary: [10 Regression] constructing constexpr variables fail with delegated constexpr constructors Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/94771] New: g++.dg/concepts/diagnostic10.C fails on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94771 Bug ID: 94771 Summary: g++.dg/concepts/diagnostic10.C fails on mingw Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/43943] "warning: no return statement in function returning non-void" should be an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43943 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/11474] -Wreturn-type should default to on when compiling C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11474 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #3) > Most of the time, it is in its own GNU mode and so could do a more > useful job here rather than IMHO blindly following non-useful standards. Nobody is

[Bug target/94770] New: class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94770 Bug ID: 94770 Summary: class with empty base passed incorrectly with -std=c++17 on mingw Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/94763] UNRESOLVED scan assembler tests on arm-none-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94763 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/94767] (unsigned bitfield) + (int) operation results in int, not unsigned int.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94767 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this has been fixed on the trunk.

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #3) > I checked the source code of the popular Fedora Linux distribution. > There are 32 examples of this problem in the C++ code, so they will > need fixing. > >

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #0) > > IMHO, for a C++ function returning non-void, a complete absence of any > > return statement in the function

[Bug fortran/94769] New: Possible use of uninitialized variable num

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94769 Bug ID: 94769 Summary: Possible use of uninitialized variable num Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug bootstrap/78251] config/gettext.m4 and config/iconv.m4 contaminate CPPFLAGS (can lead to build failures when libunwind-headers from MacPorts is active)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251 --- Comment #12 from Michael Stapelberg --- I’m also running into this bug: I have recently started linking strace against libunwind (for its handy --stack-traces option), and like having strace available in my package build dependencies to

[Bug bootstrap/78251] config/gettext.m4 and config/iconv.m4 contaminate CPPFLAGS (can lead to build failures when libunwind-headers from MacPorts is active)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251 Michael Stapelberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michael+gcc at stapelberg dot ch

[Bug middle-end/89428] missing -Wstringop-overflow on a PHI with variable offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89428 Nicholas Krause changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xerofoify at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 --- Comment #3 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > This is a valid C++ program and it would be non-conforming to reject it. Surprising. The standard looks broken to me. Standards conformance only really

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > This is a valid C++ program s/program/translation unit/

[Bug c++/94768] Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug c++/94768] New: Wreturn-type should be error, not warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94768 Bug ID: 94768 Summary: Wreturn-type should be error, not warning Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/94737] BIND(C) names are not always treated as case sensitive.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94737 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 02:39:37AM +, busby1 at llnl dot gov wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94737 > > --- Comment #4 from Lee Busby --- > (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > >