[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID --- Comment #11 from

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 Chinoune changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX --- Comment #10 from Chinoune ---

[Bug ada/98595] New: [RISC-V, Ada] a-nallfl.ads:48:13: warning: profile of "Sin" doesn't match the builtin it binds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98595 Bug ID: 98595 Summary: [RISC-V, Ada] a-nallfl.ads:48:13: warning: profile of "Sin" doesn't match the builtin it binds Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/88767] 'unroll and jam' not optimizing some loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88767 --- Comment #15 from Jiu Fu Guo --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14) > > I've only quickly tried to understand what you are proposing but I think > this is out-of scope of our "separate" distribution / interchange / >

[Bug target/98482] -mfentry creates invalid call for -mcmodel=large

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482 --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > A patch is posted at > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563033.html Yes, %r10 is pushed before __fentry__ cat test.c void func(int

[Bug tree-optimization/98097] Missing warning about strcmp (char[4], "BARZ")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98097 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug target/98482] -mfentry creates invalid call for -mcmodel=large

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98482 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|2021-01-04 00:00:00

[Bug jit/98586] libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/98333] [10/11 Regression] ICE in check_qualified_type, at tree.c:6593 since r10-1280-g78f7607db4c53f8c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98333 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #2 from

[Bug ipa/98594] New: [11 Regression] IPA modref codegen bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98594 Bug ID: 98594 Summary: [11 Regression] IPA modref codegen bug Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ipa

[Bug c++/88115] Incorrect result from alignof in templates, if also using __alignof__.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88115 --- Comment #9 from James Y Knight --- Proposed patch posted for the itanium-cxx-abi: https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/pull/115/files using the syntax: u * E And to Clang, to use that syntax: https://reviews.llvm.org/D93922 I

[Bug testsuite/98593] [11 regression] 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc execution error after r11-6524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98593 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug testsuite/98593] New: [11 regression] 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc execution error after r11-6524

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98593 Bug ID: 98593 Summary: [11 regression] 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc execution error after r11-6524 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/98592] New: ICE in gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p while formatting a MEM_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98592 Bug ID: 98592 Summary: ICE in gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p while formatting a MEM_REF Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug driver/98591] New: [11 Regression] -x c++-header -fsyntax-only fails: cc1plus: error: output filename specified twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98591 Bug ID: 98591 Summary: [11 Regression] -x c++-header -fsyntax-only fails: cc1plus: error: output filename specified twice Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/98225] gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp ltrans_args tests FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225 --- Comment #18 from David Edelsohn --- PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs-outputs-0.i PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs-outputs-0.s PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb: outputs-outputs-0.o PASS: outputs exe savetmp namedb:

[Bug fortran/60576] [8/9/10/11 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_rank_7.f90

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60576 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|WAITING CC|

[Bug c++/98329] [11 Regression] ICE in cp_build_bit_cast, at cp/semantics.c:10730

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98329 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aa4db31dd2a99b4c902f2a3ac6ef4397f84dd888 commit r11-6533-gaa4db31dd2a99b4c902f2a3ac6ef4397f84dd888 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug testsuite/98589] [11 regression] Warning changes in gcc.dg/plugin/gil-1.c after r11-6508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98589 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/98578] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98578 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/98578] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98578 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:178f0afce3611282170de380fcea9db9d6e3ff0c commit r11-6532-g178f0afce3611282170de380fcea9db9d6e3ff0c Author: Martin Sebor Date: Thu

[Bug c++/98441] [11 Regression] member function pointer incorrectly parsed as having trailing return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/98441] [11 Regression] member function pointer incorrectly parsed as having trailing return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98441 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f359597e49a15a2aef8f83ea7a14649854334cb commit r11-6531-g2f359597e49a15a2aef8f83ea7a14649854334cb Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/98346] ICE with a combination of concepts, decltype and type aliases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98346 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug analyzer/98580] ICE with -fanalyzer when LTO writes out error_mark_node for DECL_INITIAL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug analyzer/98580] ICE with -fanalyzer when LTO writes out error_mark_node for DECL_INITIAL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0677759f753d321bde52d7343227f842b7e759d2 commit r11-6527-g0677759f753d321bde52d7343227f842b7e759d2 Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID --- Comment #9 from

[Bug target/98585] [11 Regression] target attribute resets cmodel on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 49916 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49916=edit gcc11-pr98585.patch Untested fix. The problem is that if we have TargetSave or something without Save attribute and

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:49:07PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com wrote: > > I am not asking for advice here, I reported a bug with its reproducer. What bug? > It is not your concern what kind of

[Bug middle-end/98465] Bogus warning stringop-overread wuth -std=gnu++20 -O2 and std::string::insert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98465 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug bootstrap/98590] [11 regression] Bootstrap failure with Ada on Cygwin since switch to C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/98590] [11 regression] Bootstrap failure with Ada on Cygwin since switch to C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson --- Created attachment 49915 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49915=edit preprocessed output with -dM -E

[Bug bootstrap/98590] [11 regression] Bootstrap failure with Ada on Cygwin since switch to C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590 --- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson --- Created attachment 49914 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49914=edit preprocessed source for failing cstreams.c

[Bug bootstrap/98590] New: [11 regression] Bootstrap failure with Ada on Cygwin since switch to C++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98590 Bug ID: 98590 Summary: [11 regression] Bootstrap failure with Ada on Cygwin since switch to C++11 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when the pointer is dereferenced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Jon, there's no way for the optimizers to improve the to_derived_bad case as there's nothing in the IL after we leave the front-end that's useful. In the .original dump we have: ;; Function derived&

[Bug fortran/89891] [meta-bug] Accessing memory in rejected statements or expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891 Bug 89891 depends on bug 89661, which changed state. Bug 89661 Summary: FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_61.f90 -O (internal compiler error) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/89661] FAIL: gfortran.dg/class_61.f90 -O (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89661 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug testsuite/98225] gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp ltrans_args tests FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225 --- Comment #17 from Bernd Edlinger --- (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #15) > I'm seeing a number of new testsuite failures on AIX after the > collect2/testsuite change. Do you want a separate PR or use this as well? > > They are: >

[Bug fortran/89891] [meta-bug] Accessing memory in rejected statements or expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89891 Bug 89891 depends on bug 78746, which changed state. Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 What|Removed |Added

[Bug other/86656] [meta-bug] Issues found with -fsanitize=address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86656 Bug 86656 depends on bug 78746, which changed state. Bug 78746 Summary: charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/78746] charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/78746] charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 --- Comment #25 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef7d053ea33cc9abc7fc413213705a16478fefc4 commit r9-9162-gef7d053ea33cc9abc7fc413213705a16478fefc4 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/78746] charlen_03, charlen_10 ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78746 --- Comment #24 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19eb1973321375190485bc49e68992863b1972bf commit r10-9234-g19eb1973321375190485bc49e68992863b1972bf Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug target/98585] [11 Regression] target attribute resets cmodel on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- r11-3183-gba948b37768c99cd8eb9f5b6fbd45fcf4bd15b78

[Bug tree-optimization/98578] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98578 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/95852] Failure to optimize __builtin_mul_overflow pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95852 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-01-07 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug testsuite/98225] gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp ltrans_args tests FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug testsuite/98589] New: [11 regression] Warning changes in gcc.dg/plugin/gil-1.c after r11-6508

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98589 Bug ID: 98589 Summary: [11 regression] Warning changes in gcc.dg/plugin/gil-1.c after r11-6508 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 Chinoune changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/98225] gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp ltrans_args tests FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98225 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #6 from Chinoune --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #5) > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:28:15PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com > wrote: > > There is no mention of your claims in the standard: > > > > I know what the

[Bug c/98588] VLA index formatted as when it could be expanded into an expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98588 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic See Also|

[Bug c/98588] New: VLA index formatted as when it could be expanded into an expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98588 Bug ID: 98588 Summary: VLA index formatted as when it could be expanded into an expression Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: trivial

[Bug c/98587] incorrect format of VLAs and pointer to array for MEM_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98587 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |trivial Keywords|

[Bug c/98587] New: incorrect format of VLAs and pointer to array for MEM_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98587 Bug ID: 98587 Summary: incorrect format of VLAs and pointer to array for MEM_REF Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/98585] [11 Regression] target attribute resets cmodel on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug jit/98586] New: libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98586 Bug ID: 98586 Summary: libgccjit crashes with segmentation fault on failed gcc_assert Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 05:28:15PM +, mehdi.chinoune at hotmail dot com wrote: > There is no mention of your claims in the standard: > I know what the standard says. > Fortran 2018: > COUNT (optional)

[Bug libstdc++/98384] [11 Regression] new test case 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc in r11-6249 fails on powerpc64 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #4) > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3) > > Candidate patch: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563000.html > > thanks! > > On

[Bug libstdc++/98384] [11 Regression] new test case 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc in r11-6249 fails on powerpc64 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:19f3c433cdc92f1ad6c37f182d5034b03c54afef commit r11-6524-g19f3c433cdc92f1ad6c37f182d5034b03c54afef Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug lto/45375] [meta-bug] Issues with building Mozilla (i.e. Firefox) with LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 Bug 45375 depends on bug 45791, which changed state. Bug 45791 Summary: Missed devirtualization https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/45791] Missed devirtualization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45791 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/93701] ICE on associate of wrongly accessed array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93701 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85fb1d7d5f44a81a52015d58ebe67765faabfd35 commit r11-6523-g85fb1d7d5f44a81a52015d58ebe67765faabfd35 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Thu

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 --- Comment #4 from Chinoune --- (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > (In reply to Chinoune from comment #2) > > program main > > use iso_fortran_env > > implicit none > > ! > > integer(int32) :: count_rate_i32 > > integer(int64) ::

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/98585] New: [11 Regression] target attribute resets cmodel on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98585 Bug ID: 98585 Summary: [11 Regression] target attribute resets cmodel on x86 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/98463] [11 Regression] internal compiler error: in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5491 by r11-2720

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98463 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Unfortunately that patch regresses +FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-empty9.C -std=c++11 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-empty9.C -std=c++14 (test for excess errors) +FAIL:

[Bug lto/50430] Constructors of static external vars are throwed away leading to missed optimizations (and ipa-cp ICE).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50430 --- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor --- Am I correct thinking that this has been addressed (long time ago)? The entire optimized dump of the testcase from comment #3 is now the following, so no missed devirtualization there: void

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- Interestingly trunk doesn't exhibit the issue with radb2 but radb4 and radb3 and radb5 still do ... (radb3 being the next "smallest") but a similarly stripped down testcase doesn't exhibit problems either

[Bug libstdc++/98384] [11 Regression] new test case 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc in r11-6249 fails on powerpc64 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384 --- Comment #4 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #3) > Candidate patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563000.html thanks! On Darwin, the test case now builds (checked on a 32b host

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 --- Comment #26 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d3d6343903f7ad79f0c70767bd106008fbfc346 commit r9-9161-g4d3d6343903f7ad79f0c70767bd106008fbfc346 Author: Paul Thomas Date:

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 --- Comment #25 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b66dc7d363d26681113692f75ae9c033c12f3897 commit r9-9160-gb66dc7d363d26681113692f75ae9c033c12f3897 Author: Paul Thomas Date:

[Bug fortran/98577] Wrong "count_rate" values with int32 and real32 if the "count" argument is int64.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98577 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug d/98584] New: Many D tests FAIL with SIGBUS in read_encoded_value_with_base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98584 Bug ID: 98584 Summary: Many D tests FAIL with SIGBUS in read_encoded_value_with_base Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/98567] Failure to optimize using ZF flag from blsi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98567 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/79966] [9/10/11 Regression] Test gfortran.dg/pr79966.f90 slow again, inliner hits max-inline-insns-auto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] run|[9/10/11 Regression] Test

[Bug target/98567] Failure to optimize using ZF flag from blsi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98567 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6bca2ebf10654b8beb5c5737c8652e8262901294 commit r11-6520-g6bca2ebf10654b8beb5c5737c8652e8262901294 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug middle-end/98583] New: missing -Wuninitialized reading from a second VLA in its own block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98583 Bug ID: 98583 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized reading from a second VLA in its own block Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #15 from Martin Reinecke --- "Problem at length N" means that the FFT of length N is computed incorrectly. Also, N==l1*ido*x. For an FFT of length N, the computation is broken down into several passes. Let's take N=15. First the

[Bug ipa/79966] [9/10/11 Regression] run time more than twice slower when using -fipa-cp-clone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79966 --- Comment #13 from Martin Jambor --- I can confirm this, even on current trunk. The reason is that runtptests/3 -> tp_sum/5 is not inlined because it exceeds max-inline-insns-auto. I have to set the param to 43 - the default is 15 - for the

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- So that makes it sth like the following then - still not miscomparing. What's the "problem at length N" hinting at? Does N somehow make ido/l1 different? typedef unsigned long size_t; template inline

[Bug libstdc++/98384] [11 Regression] new test case 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc in r11-6249 fails on powerpc64 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Palka --- Candidate patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563000.html

[Bug tree-optimization/98563] [10/11 Regression] vectorization fails while it worked on gcc 9 and earlier since since r10-2271-gd81ab49d0586fca0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98563 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11 Regression] |[10/11 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #13 from Martin Reinecke --- > What kind of shape (w/o too much guessing) is the function expecting for its > input arrays? For radb the size of the cc and ch arrays is l1*ido*x. Size of wa is (x-1)*ido.

[Bug analyzer/98580] ICE with -fanalyzer when LTO writes out error_mark_node for DECL_INITIAL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98580 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE with -fanalyzer and |ICE with -fanalyzer when

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- So at least the following doesn't produce any different answers for me comparing -O -ftree-loop-vectorize -mavx to -O0 typedef unsigned long size_t; template inline void PM(T , T , T c, T d) { a=c+d;

[Bug fortran/83118] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Bad intrinsic assignment of class(*) array component of derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- Or massaging the C++ to produce a single-function testcase (driver still missing, I think we can remove the "unrelated" loops as well). What kind of shape (w/o too much guessing) is the function expecting

[Bug c/98582] Optimization combined with aliasing generating wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98582 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 49912 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49912=edit GIMPLE testcase for one of the miscompiled(?) loops It shows similar vectorized / analysis IL as for the big

[Bug c/98582] Optimization combined with aliasing generating wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98582 --- Comment #2 from Ferruh YIGIT --- Thanks Jakup, I confirm the 'may_alias' attribute is doing the trick. -fno-strict-aliasing was already confirmed. I can see the aliasing between incompatible types, but it bothers me not able to see what

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #8) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > > Confirmed, one can reduce that to a single loop vectorization: > > > > $ g++ bug2.cc -std=c++17 -O1 -mavx

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 --- Comment #24 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2b53f0afceb09d20fe02ac1a014d49075f098e5 commit r10-9232-gb2b53f0afceb09d20fe02ac1a014d49075f098e5 Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug fortran/96325] Unclassifiable statement with syntax similar to a type-bound procedure call is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96325 --- Comment #23 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:316aa7ad19cd5b2dacba61bd7cc930449108abe5 commit r10-9231-g316aa7ad19cd5b2dacba61bd7cc930449108abe5 Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug c/98582] Optimization combined with aliasing generating wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98582 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > Confirmed, one can reduce that to a single loop vectorization: > > $ g++ bug2.cc -std=c++17 -O1 -mavx -ftree-loop-vectorize > -fdbg-cnt=vect_loop:10-10 &&

[Bug c/98582] New: Optimization combined with aliasing generating wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98582 Bug ID: 98582 Summary: Optimization combined with aliasing generating wrong code Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/98569] concept error message does not report the file location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98569 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-01-07

[Bug tree-optimization/98544] [11 regression] Wrong code generated by tree vectorizer since r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98544 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #3) > > For g++ bug2.cc -std=c++17 -O1 -mavx -ftree-loop-vectorize, it started with > > r11-3917-g28290cb50c7dbf87. >

[Bug c++/98543] fails to diagnose unnecessary functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98543 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-01-07

  1   2   >