[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/92658] x86 lacks vector extend / truncate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92658 --- Comment #16 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #15) > I will leave truncations (Down Converts in Intel speak) which are AVX512F > instructions to someone else. It should be easy to add missing patterns and > tests

[Bug libfortran/95177] error: array subscript has type char

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177 --- Comment #9 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 04:10:50AM +, tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177 > > Thomas Koenig changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug libfortran/95177] error: array subscript has type char

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/95177] error: array subscript has type char

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/95223] [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka --- Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-May/546106.html

[Bug tree-optimization/95199] Remove extra variable created for memory reference in loop vectorization.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95199 --- Comment #2 from Kaipeng Zhou --- It seems that IVOPTs has no ability to handle the case where TREE_CODE(iv_step) is SSA_NAME.

[Bug target/95228] New: Failure to optimize register allocation around atomic loads/stores

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95228 Bug ID: 95228 Summary: Failure to optimize register allocation around atomic loads/stores Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/95227] New: vec_extract doesn't mark input as used in C++ mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95227 Bug ID: 95227 Summary: vec_extract doesn't mark input as used in C++ mode Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/95223] [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 --- Comment #4 from Bill Seurer --- It was definitely r11-477. I see this causing an ICE when building gcc albeit only on power 9.

[Bug c++/95226] New: Faulty aggregate initialization of vector with struct with float

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95226 Bug ID: 95226 Summary: Faulty aggregate initialization of vector with struct with float Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/95223] [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libgcc/95220] Incorrect GFNI dectection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95220 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/95212] enum processor_features is out of sync

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95212 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.2 Resolution|---

[Bug libgcc/95220] Incorrect GFNI dectection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95220 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e54fa81e16eb5633ed09c816311135ecc434f105 commit r10-8158-ge54fa81e16eb5633ed09c816311135ecc434f105 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue

[Bug libgcc/95220] Incorrect GFNI dectection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95220 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c7b747995a687d513dddfeafa54c6af4d10dc17 commit r9-8606-g2c7b747995a687d513dddfeafa54c6af4d10dc17 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue

[Bug target/95212] enum processor_features is out of sync

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95212 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e54fa81e16eb5633ed09c816311135ecc434f105 commit r10-8158-ge54fa81e16eb5633ed09c816311135ecc434f105 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue

[Bug c++/86142] hard error for bad delete-expression in SFINAE context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86142 ensadc at mailnesia dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to

[Bug target/94087] std::random_device often fails when used from multiple threads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94087 --- Comment #24 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a2d196e75cef95c2b70734ad02e94f9da0e769fe commit r11-506-ga2d196e75cef95c2b70734ad02e94f9da0e769fe Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/95225] [11 regression] build failure (ICE) starting with r11-477

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95225 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug c++/95223] [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at linux dot vnet.ibm.com ---

[Bug c++/95223] [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/95225] New: [11 regression] build failure (ICE) starting with r11-477

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95225 Bug ID: 95225 Summary: [11 regression] build failure (ICE) starting with r11-477 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- You're not wrong, but here we're dealing with the undefined behavior sanitizer whose point is to detect broken code like the above.

[Bug target/95211] [11 Regression] ICE in emit_unop_insn, at optabs.c:3622

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW CC|

[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Is this code even defined? We call a method after calling the deconstructor on the object? If we do: c->~MyClass (); new(c) MyClass(); c->Doit (); Then it is defined. Or am I wrong about that?

[Bug lto/95224] New: -flto -save-temps uses very unusual name for resolution file, looks arbitrary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95224 Bug ID: 95224 Summary: -flto -save-temps uses very unusual name for resolution file, looks arbitrary Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/95212] enum processor_features is out of sync

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95212 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:453954451be68d22462442268a29f54809182d2b commit r11-505-g453954451be68d22462442268a29f54809182d2b Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue May 19

[Bug libgcc/95220] Incorrect GFNI dectection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95220 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:453954451be68d22462442268a29f54809182d2b commit r11-505-g453954451be68d22462442268a29f54809182d2b Author: H.J. Lu Date: Tue May 19

[Bug c++/95223] [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ --- Comment #1 from Jonathan

[Bug c++/69433] missing -Wreturn-local-addr assigning address of a local to a static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69433 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dank at kegel dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/24786] Missing warning on questionable use of parameter to initialize static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Martin

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 53890, which changed state. Bug 53890 Summary: bogus array bounds warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53890 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/53890] bogus array bounds warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53890 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||4.8.5 Known to work|

[Bug sanitizer/94910] detect_stack_use_after_return=1 is much slower than clang's

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94910 --- Comment #8 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- I can confirm that the proposed patch fixes the issue for me. Thank you so much!

[Bug libstdc++/95223] New: [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95223 Bug ID: 95223 Summary: [11 regression] hash table checking failed: equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value Product: gcc

[Bug c++/95222] GCC 10.1 x86 issue with function pointers with calling convention attribute and template specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222 --- Comment #1 from raptorfactor at raptorfactor dot com --- $ g++ -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=C:\Redacted\msys2-x86_64-rolling\mingw32\bin\g++.exe

[Bug c/50584] No warning for passing small array to C99 static array declarator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50584 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|2015-07-03

[Bug c++/95222] New: GCC 10.1 x86 issue with function pointers with calling convention attribute and template specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95222 Bug ID: 95222 Summary: GCC 10.1 x86 issue with function pointers with calling convention attribute and template specialization Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status:

[Bug target/95211] [11 Regression] ICE in emit_unop_insn, at optabs.c:3622

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211 --- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha --- Uh-oh… int s6; void ml (long int *ha, int dz) { int iy[dz]; int *tp; int cm; for (cm = 0; cm < 3; ++cm) tp[cm] = ha[cm] + 1.0f; if (s6 == 0) return; }

[Bug tree-optimization/49657] array subscript warnings when building gcc with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/48091] No warning when given function arguments mismatch earlier function definition which GCC assumes to be K, even with --std=c99 -pedantic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48091 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2017-01-23 00:00:00 |2020-5-19 CC|

[Bug c++/46513] Request: Warning for use of unsafe string handling functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46513 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/44300] Spurious array subscript warning, [0] == [1] is not folded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44300 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug sanitizer/95137] Sanitizers seem to be missing support for coroutines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137 --- Comment #12 from Rafael Avila de Espindola --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #6) > Thank you, can you please attach a pre-processed file (-E) so that one > doesn't need to clone seastar repository? The testcase that is attached

[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- And for completeness, the asm for the -fstrong-eval-order=all case: movq%rbx, %rdi call*%r12 movq-24(%rbp), %rax movq(%rax), %rax addq$16, %rax

[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- I think the thing is that we have a CALL_EXPR, something like OBJ_TYPE_REF (...) (.UBSAN_VPTR ()) and now we first evaluate the OBJ_TYPE_REF. In this case this is what seems to happen here: 1) we

[Bug c++/68160] Can bind packed field if it's packed with #pragma pack(push, 1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68160 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.1.0, 11.0, 5.5.0, 6.4.0,

[Bug c/41809] escaping address of packed field should trigger warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.1.0, 9.2.0 Resolution|---

[Bug c/41809] escaping address of packed field should trigger warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41809 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug other/90556] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wreturn-local-addr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90556 Bug 90556 depends on bug 24786, which changed state. Bug 24786 Summary: Missing warning on questionable use of parameter to initialize static https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/24786] Missing warning on questionable use of parameter to initialize static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786 dank at kegel dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug c++/95221] g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- It is caused by this code: 853 if (flag_strong_eval_order == 2 854 && CALL_EXPR_FN (*expr_p) 855 && cp_get_callee_fndecl_nofold (*expr_p) == NULL_TREE) 856 { 857

[Bug target/94591] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Assembler messages: Error: operand mismatch -- `rev64 v0.2d,v0.2d' (or `rev32 v0.2s,v0.2s')

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/39353] Linker warning causing tests to fail (960218 and 20030913)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39353 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-05-19 CC|

[Bug c++/95221] New: g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95221 Bug ID: 95221 Summary: g++.dg/ubsan/vptr-12.C fails with -fstrong-eval-order=all Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/31279] Uninitialized warning for call-by-reference arguments with known intent(in)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31279 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/24786] Missing warning on questionable use of parameter to initialize static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24786 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libgcc/95220] New: Incorrect GFNI dectection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95220 Bug ID: 95220 Summary: Incorrect GFNI dectection Product: gcc Version: 10.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc

[Bug target/94591] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Assembler messages: Error: operand mismatch -- `rev64 v0.2d,v0.2d' (or `rev32 v0.2s,v0.2s')

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94591 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98452668d362bb9e6358f7eb5cff69f4f5ab1d45 commit r11-502-g98452668d362bb9e6358f7eb5cff69f4f5ab1d45 Author: Alex Coplan Date: Tue

[Bug target/95211] [11 Regression] ICE in emit_unop_insn, at optabs.c:3622

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Ever

[Bug c++/95149] lex.c:1729:8: warning: result of comparison against a string literal is unspecified (use an explicit string comparison function instead) [-Wstring-compare]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95149 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Nathan Sidwell from comment #4) > Fixed ed63c387aa0 g:ed63c387aa0

[Bug c++/94923] False positive -Wclass-memaccess with trivially copyable std::optional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94923 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0d8623ce5aa6d92c2e6c62e1bee66272a011f59 commit r11-499-gc0d8623ce5aa6d92c2e6c62e1bee66272a011f59 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug fortran/95109] [11 regression] ICE in gfortran.dg/gomp/target1.f90 after r11-349

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95109 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/95149] lex.c:1729:8: warning: result of comparison against a string literal is unspecified (use an explicit string comparison function instead) [-Wstring-compare]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95149 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/95218] [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/95219] New: [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/costmodel-pr30843.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95219 Bug ID: 95219 Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/costmodel/x86_64/costmodel-pr30843.c Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/95218] New: [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95218 Bug ID: 95218 Summary: [11 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/fma_run_double_1.c execution test Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/95216] Extra space in __builtin_ia32_vec_pack_sfix256 definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #4 from Andrew

[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2010-06-28 00:34:58 |2020-5-19 --- Comment #10 from Martin

[Bug target/95216] Extra space in __builtin_ia32_vec_pack_sfix256 definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- This is an internal only builtin which is created only via the vectorizer.

[Bug target/95216] Extra space in __builtin_ia32_vec_pack_sfix256 definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/89180] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wunused warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180 Bug 89180 depends on bug 95217, which changed state. Bug 95217 Summary: missing -Wunused-but-set-parameter for compound assignment https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95217 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/95217] missing -Wunused-but-set-parameter for compound assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95217 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Blocks|

[Bug c/64639] missing warning by -Wunused-value in compound expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64639 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c++/95202] Assignment to a member is wrongly optimized away by g++ with -fstrict-aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95202 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c/95217] New: missing -Wunused-but-set-parameter for compound assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95217 Bug ID: 95217 Summary: missing -Wunused-but-set-parameter for compound assignment Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/95210] internal compiler error: in prepare_copy_insn, at gcse.c:1988

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95210 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- testcase?

[Bug target/95211] [11 Regression] ICE in emit_unop_insn, at optabs.c:3622

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95211 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug target/95216] Extra space in __builtin_ia32_vec_pack_sfix256 definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/95206] internal compiler error: in sign_mask, at wide-int.h:855

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95206 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/94955] [10 Regression] ICE in to_wide

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94955 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||danny.schneider at posteo dot de ---

[Bug target/95216] New: Extra space in __builtin_ia32_vec_pack_sfix256 definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95216 Bug ID: 95216 Summary: Extra space in __builtin_ia32_vec_pack_sfix256 definition Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/95215] New: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14079

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95215 Bug ID: 95215 Summary: internal compiler error: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:14079 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/94962] Suboptimal AVX2 code for _mm256_zextsi128_si256(_mm_set1_epi8(-1))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94962 --- Comment #7 from Nemo --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6) > > vmovdqa xmm0, xmm0 is not redundant here, it would clear up 128-256 bit > which is the meaning of `zext`. No, it is redundant because "vpcmpeqd xmm0, xmm0, xmm0" already

[Bug lto/95190] Documentation for -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190 --- Comment #5 from Mario Charest --- On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 2:35 AM rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190 > > --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- > This is new

[Bug libfortran/95177] error: array subscript has type char

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug lto/95190] Documentation for -Wstringop-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190 --- Comment #4 from Mario Charest --- On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:09 PM msebor at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95190 > > Martin Sebor changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug libfortran/95177] error: array subscript has type char

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95177 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug libstdc++/71133] msp430-elf -mlarge FTBFS in libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71133 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0

[Bug libstdc++/95209] std::filesystem::path::lexically_normal mangles "//foo"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95209 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- You didn't provide the requested information when creating a new bug report, please see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ (In reply to M Welinder from comment #0) > lexically_normal transforms "//foo" into

[Bug libstdc++/95200] user-defined hash function is not copied correctly if unordered_map is declared using an incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95200 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's undefined behaviour so anything can happen.

[Bug bootstrap/95205] patch commit, and making gcc error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95205 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/95204] patch commit, and making gcc error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95204 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/95205] patch commit, and making gcc error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95205 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 95204 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/95214] New: ICE on assumed-rank character array with select rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95214 Bug ID: 95214 Summary: ICE on assumed-rank character array with select rank Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/95200] user-defined hash function is not copied correctly if unordered_map is declared using an incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95200 --- Comment #5 from jevgenijsz1 at verifone dot com --- Moreover if I was to put a breakpoint in struct hash I can see that it is being used 4 times in the code example posted: twice to hash the EnumType on insertion and twice on access (however

[Bug c/95213] GCC -Werror=conversion error when assigning to a bitfield (when mixing constants and variables)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95213 --- Comment #1 from Seth Robertson --- FYI, discussion on https://stackoverflow.com/questions/61877799/son-of-gcc-conversion-warning-when-assigning-to-a-bitfield

[Bug c/95213] New: GCC -Werror=conversion error when assigning to a bitfield (when mixing constants and variables)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95213 Bug ID: 95213 Summary: GCC -Werror=conversion error when assigning to a bitfield (when mixing constants and variables) Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/95212] New: enum processor_features is out of sync

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95212 Bug ID: 95212 Summary: enum processor_features is out of sync Product: gcc Version: 10.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

  1   2   >