[Bug libgcc/97754] New: arm/lib1funcs.S (RETLDM): CFI may be incorrect

2020-11-07 Thread martingalvan at sourceware dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97754 Bug ID: 97754 Summary: arm/lib1funcs.S (RETLDM): CFI may be incorrect Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

2020-11-07 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

2020-11-07 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #38 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06a191027749834e628f2c2bdd2256108bf532e9 commit r10-8992-g06a191027749834e628f2c2bdd2256108bf532e9 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/94083] inefficient soft-float x!=Inf code

2020-11-07 Thread wilson at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94083 The original bug report was apparently lost in the sourceware/gcc migration back in the spring and I didn't notice until now. This testcase int foo(void) { volatile float f, g; intn; f = __builtin_huge_valf(); g =

[Bug c++/97753] New: ice in operator[], at vec.h:880

2020-11-07 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97753 Bug ID: 97753 Summary: ice in operator[], at vec.h:880 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/97746] ice in vect_init_pattern_stmt, at tree-vect-patterns.c:116

2020-11-07 Thread zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97746 Zhendong Su changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch ---

[Bug testsuite/97680] [11 Regression] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

2020-11-07 Thread iains at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680 --- Comment #5 from Iain Sandoe --- I added xfail-if for powerpc-darwin (8,9, 10 and 11). https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-cvs/2020-November/336720.html Since i don't think I will have time this cycle to implement it (there are much more

[Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages

2020-11-07 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352 --- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12) > (In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #11) > > Is there a patch or WIP somewhere I can try out or attempt to bring > > forwards? > > I need to bring forward

[Bug c++/97752] incorrect address to inherited object in constexpr context

2020-11-07 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97752 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/97752] New: incorrect address to inherited object in constexpr context

2020-11-07 Thread steven.vanderschoot--- via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97752 Bug ID: 97752 Summary: incorrect address to inherited object in constexpr context Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug d/97644] FAIL: gdc.dg/gdc204.d due to ICE in finish_thunk

2020-11-07 Thread ibuclaw at gdcproject dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 --- Comment #11 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #10) > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 > > > > --- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw --- > > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8) > > > > Current

[Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages

2020-11-07 Thread iains at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352 --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #11) > Is there a patch or WIP somewhere I can try out or attempt to bring forwards? I need to bring forward my patches to the latest master, will post a link here

[Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages

2020-11-07 Thread grobian at gentoo dot org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352 Fabian Groffen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||grobian at gentoo dot org --- Comment

[Bug c++/97751] New: C++20 NTTP: class template argument deduction failed

2020-11-07 Thread janpmoeller at gmx dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97751 Bug ID: 97751 Summary: C++20 NTTP: class template argument deduction failed Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/97750] ICE in during GIMPLE pass: wrestrict on commit e0af865ab9d9d5b6b3ac7fdde26cf9bbf635b6b4

2020-11-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97750 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/97750] ICE in during GIMPLE pass: wrestrict on commit e0af865ab9d9d5b6b3ac7fdde26cf9bbf635b6b4

2020-11-07 Thread hedmoo at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97750 --- Comment #1 from andreas --- Created attachment 49518 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49518=edit flags and system

[Bug tree-optimization/97750] New: ICE in during GIMPLE pass: wrestrict on commit e0af865ab9d9d5b6b3ac7fdde26cf9bbf635b6b4

2020-11-07 Thread hedmoo at yahoo dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97750 Bug ID: 97750 Summary: ICE in during GIMPLE pass: wrestrict on commit e0af865ab9d9d5b6b3ac7fdde26cf9bbf635b6b4 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ada/97557] [11 regression] several ada test case failures

2020-11-07 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97557 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/97738] Optimizing division by value & - value for HAKMEM 175

2020-11-07 Thread tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97738 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > What about a version that still sets lowest_bit to value & -value; rather > than 1 < ctz? I think this would be ideal, or close to it. > Also, I'm not sure you

[Bug target/83562] broken destructors of thread_local objects on i686 mingw targets

2020-11-07 Thread lh_mouse at 126 dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83562 Liu Hao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/97748] Preincrement of _Complex gives bogus warning = "value computed is not used"

2020-11-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97748 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Untested WIP patch, though C++ FE needs some extra work: --- gcc/c-family/c-common.h.jj 2020-11-03 11:15:07.170681001 +0100 +++ gcc/c-family/c-common.h 2020-11-07 09:37:48.597233063 +0100 @@ -1362,7

[Bug c/97748] Preincrement of _Complex gives bogus warning = "value computed is not used"

2020-11-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97748 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1