[Bug c++/99938] Non-void function with no return statement: Either no or misleading warning is printed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99938 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- Dump of assembler code from 0x1094366c to 0x109436e0: 0x1094366c : lhz r0,0(r9) 0x10943670 : clrldi r0,r0,48 0x10943674 : stw r0,200(r31)

[Bug c++/99968] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/99968] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:43ab1dc24abd6fded8d5bf6547f0de6851beb200 commit r11-8039-g43ab1dc24abd6fded8d5bf6547f0de6851beb200 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/99968] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE on |ICE on

[Bug c++/99968] [10/11 Regression] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Summary|[11 Regression]

[Bug c++/99968] [11 Regression] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The ICE only happens with -g

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > So I can confirm the issue trying to build gcc10 packages for SLE11 ppc64 > (after much massaging). It works fine (past the failure point) on x86_64 > with

[Bug c++/99969] New: g++ incorrectly thinks a private destructor is available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99969 Bug ID: 99969 Summary: g++ incorrectly thinks a private destructor is available Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/99968] [11 Regression] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.2.1 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/99968] New: [11 Regression] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99968 Bug ID: 99968 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE on remove_const_t in requires-expression Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity:

[Bug target/97513] [11 regression] aarch64 SVE regressions since r11-3822

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97513 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- So fixed?

[Bug c++/80039] `constexpr` member function calls in a `constexpr` constructor are ignored if the object is defined locally

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80039 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/99965] segfault only happening with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99965 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, even std::vector isn't guaranteed to align for the pointer types, but usually will, but even when you ensure the start is aligned, the pointer arithmetics you do afterwards needs to ensure that it is

[Bug c++/99967] New: gcc accepts declaration type contains unexpanded parameter pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99967 Bug ID: 99967 Summary: gcc accepts declaration type contains unexpanded parameter pack Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/99930] Failure to optimize floating point -abs(x) in nontrivial code at -O2/3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930 --- Comment #9 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #8) > That patch is no good. The combination is not allowed because it is not > known what the "use"s are *for*. Checking if something is from the constant >

[Bug libstdc++/99333] std::filesystem::path().is_absolute() thinks UNC paths aren't absolute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99333 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 See Also|

[Bug ipa/99951] Dead return value after modify_call() is not released

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99951 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug lto/99898] Possible LTO object incompatibility on gcc-10 branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug lto/99898] Possible LTO object incompatibility on gcc-10 branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99898 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3134e02305d00b358659d42400f45bdd49f4fbd3 commit r10-9663-g3134e02305d00b358659d42400f45bdd49f4fbd3 Author: Richard

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- So I can confirm the issue trying to build gcc10 packages for SLE11 ppc64 (after much massaging). It works fine (past the failure point) on x86_64 with the same versioned host compiler. It works fine

[Bug libstdc++/92546] Large increase in preprocessed file sizes in C++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hewillk at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/99958] The seems to contain the entire and in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99958 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/92546] Large increase in preprocessed file sizes in C++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely --- This seems to work: diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/pstl/glue_algorithm_defs.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/pstl/glue_algorithm_defs.h index 48bc56ae401..cef78e22e31 100644 ---

[Bug libstdc++/92546] Large increase in preprocessed file sizes in C++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546 --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely --- As noted in PR 99958 comment 1, got big, because: is included by which is included by which is included by which is included by which is included by which is included by . is included by ,

[Bug libstdc++/92546] Large increase in preprocessed file sizes in C++2a mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92546 --- Comment #19 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #16) > includes so std::boyer_moore_searcher can use > std::vector, but it doesn't need it at all. Using std::unique_ptr would > do fine. We can't change that

[Bug target/99647] arm: GCC generates invalid MVE vmov instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99647 --- Comment #4 from Alex Coplan --- Fixed on trunk so far.

[Bug target/99647] arm: GCC generates invalid MVE vmov instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99647 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Alex Coplan : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67d56b272021363eb58c319ca3b73beba3a60817 commit r11-8038-g67d56b272021363eb58c319ca3b73beba3a60817 Author: Alex Coplan Date: Thu

[Bug c++/18635] [DR 504] use of uninitialised reference accepted (without -Wuninitialized) in C++ front end

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18635 Manuel López-Ibáñez changed: What|Removed |Added URL||http://www.open-std.org/jtc

[Bug ipa/99951] Dead return value after modify_call() is not released

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99951 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Feng Xue from comment #2) > Can we report error in verify_ssa() when a non-default SSA's defining > statement has NULL bb, which is always a case that the statement is removed > somewhere? We

[Bug tree-optimization/99966] Bounds check not eliminated by assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99966 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-08 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/99959] [9/10/11 Regression] missing -Wuninitialized for an esra variable with TREE_NO_WARNING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99959 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.4

<    1   2   3   4