[Bug target/82735] _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735 --- Comment #14 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #12) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > > Last touched in PR99563. > > I guess for the explicit user vzeroupper we need to add the clobbers/sets > > earlier

[Bug bootstrap/100327] [12 regression] bootstrap failure after r12-228

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Build||powerpc64*-linux-gnu

[Bug tree-optimization/94092] Code size and performance degradations after -ftree-loop-distribute-patterns was enabled at -O[2s]+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94092 Alexandre Oliva changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/100327] New: [12 regression] bootstrap failure after r12-228

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100327 Bug ID: 100327 Summary: [12 regression] bootstrap failure after r12-228 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/100173] telecom/viterb00data_1 has 16.92% regression compared O2 -ftree-vectorize -fvect-cost-model=very-cheap to O2 on CLX/ICX, 9% regression on znver3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100173 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- > but yes, cselim will also sink the first store, moving it across the > scalar compute in the block. I might note that ideally we'd sink > all the compute as well and end up with just a conditional load of

[Bug target/51793] pragma GCC optimize wrapv leads to invalid code on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51793 --- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible --- Correction to comment #3: It works fine on - Solaris 11.4 (gcc 7.3.0): foo.s contains '.p2align 4,,15' - Solaris 11 OpenIndiana (gcc 7.2.0): likewise - Solaris 11 OmniOS (gcc 9.3.0): foo.s contains '.p2align

[Bug tree-optimization/100250] [11 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|11.0, 12.0 |11.1.0 Known to work|

[Bug middle-end/100307] [11/12 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative pointer offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/51793] pragma GCC optimize wrapv leads to invalid code on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51793 Bruno Haible changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/100250] [11/12 Regression] ICE related to -Wmaybe-uninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100250 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2c8bffa184dffba7976ba807ef0a1bbb6f66aa2d commit r12-246-g2c8bffa184dffba7976ba807ef0a1bbb6f66aa2d Author: Martin Sebor Date: Wed

[Bug c++/100326] New: Crash with `#pragma GCC unroll` when calling value which can't be called in template function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100326 Bug ID: 100326 Summary: Crash with `#pragma GCC unroll` when calling value which can't be called in template function Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/51793] pragma GCC optimize wrapv leads to invalid code on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51793 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/95872] Duplicated warning message in "-Wlogical-op"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95872 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-28 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse --- PR94589 then.

[Bug c++/100030] ICE: in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.c:26757

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100030 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/100282] [11/12 Regression] ICE in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.c:26813

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100282 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/100031] ICE: in dependent_type_p, at cp/pt.c:26757

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100031 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100248] ICE with global "default" keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100248 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/100325] missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/100325] New: missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100325 Bug ID: 100325 Summary: missing warning with -O0 on sprintf overflow with pointer plus offset Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/100288] [11/12 Regression] g++-11 internal error and fails to precompile a concept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Reduced test that shows the ICE: class ostream; template concept OstreamInsertable = requires(ostream out, Type value) { out << value; }; struct FMT {}; class CSVTabIns { template friend void

[Bug c++/100288] [11/12 Regression] g++-11 internal error and fails to precompile a concept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100288 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.2 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/100316] Regression: __clear_cache() does not support NULL-pointer arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100316 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/100313] pointer to member function is not const with sanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100313 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- In fact, this is about -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks.

[Bug target/100321] [OpenMP][nvptx] (Con't) Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/100313] pointer to member function is not const with sanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100313 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Cleaned up: template struct Prop { void notify() { if constexpr (A != nullptr) { } } }; struct S { inline void fn() { } }; int main() { Prop<::fn> prop; prop.notify(); } Requires only

[Bug c++/80475] Unevaluated combined delete new expression doesn't handle access error in class template SFINAE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80475 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/61806] [C++11] Expression sfinae w/o access gives hard error in partial template specializations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61806 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka --- *** Bug 80475 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/100313] pointer to member function is not const with sanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100313 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c++/85263] [concepts] ICE with parameter pack matching

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85263 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 85263, which changed state. Bug 85263 Summary: [concepts] ICE with parameter pack matching https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85263 What|Removed |Added

[Bug fortran/100283] [11/12 Regression] Call to MIN0 with integer(8) arguments raises an ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100283 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The testcase is accepted with -fdefault-integer-8.

[Bug c++/99465] Segmentation fault when put lambda into requires clause

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99465 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug libgomp/98391] Wrong results with small matrix size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98391 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/100269] [12 Regression] i686 biarch compiler fails for Darwin after r12-36.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100269 --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe --- Created attachment 50705 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50705=edit patch under test It doesn't seem that the rationale for the changes in r12-35/36 is captured anywhere I could find -

[Bug libgomp/98391] Wrong results with small matrix size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98391 --- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries --- Jakub, should this be marked as resolved-invalid?

[Bug libgomp/98391] Wrong results with small matrix size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98391 --- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries --- Fixed by: ... do i = 1, n +!$omp atomic c(i,j) = a(k) + c(i,j) end do ...

[Bug libgomp/98391] Wrong results with small matrix size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98391 --- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries --- Minimal example openmp: ... program main implicit none integer :: i, j, k integer :: n = 2 real :: a(2), c(2,2), cc(2,2) a = 0.5 cc = 0 do j = 1, n do k = 1, n do i = 1, n

[Bug fortran/100283] [11/12 Regression] Call to MIN0 with integer(8) arguments raises an ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100283 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||11.1.0, 12.0

[Bug d/100324] gcc-10.2.0 (and earlier) fails to build on x86_64, but has builds just fine aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100324 --- Comment #1 from Tor --- Just compiled gcc-11.1.0 on aarch64. No problem for all languages.

[Bug rtl-optimization/100225] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in add_cross_iteration_register_deps, at ddg.c:291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100225 --- Comment #4 from Roman Zhuykov --- Created attachment 50704 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50704=edit Tested patch Fix in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569110.html, pushing to trunk tomorrow

[Bug d/100324] New: gcc-10.2.0 (and earlier) fails to build on x86_64, but has builds just fine aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100324 Bug ID: 100324 Summary: gcc-10.2.0 (and earlier) fails to build on x86_64, but has builds just fine aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/52830] ICE: "canonical types differ for identical types ..." when attempting SFINAE with member type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52830 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at mengyan1223 dot wang --- Comment

[Bug target/100217] [11/12 Regression] ICE when building valgrind testsuite with -march=z14 since r11-7552

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100217 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- For valgrind, the quick workaround would be -march=z13 when compiling the s390x tests that have register long double variables.

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 --- Comment #13 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to José Rui Faustino de Sousa from comment #12) > I do not have the "edit" or "take" links and if I click "Not yet assigned to > anyone" it tries to send an email to

[Bug c++/19377] Using declaration in "private" part causes "protected" diagnostic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19377 --- Comment #15 from Anthony Sharp --- This should now be fixed as part of my patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=be246ac2d26e1cb072f205bf97d5eac150220f3f

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 --- Comment #12 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #11) > Did you try to click on 'take' in > > Assignee: > Not yet assigned to anyone (edit) (take) > I do not have the "edit" or "take"

[Bug target/100217] [11/12 Regression] ICE when building valgrind testsuite with -march=z14 since r11-7552

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100217 --- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard --- BTW. Disabling that test in valgrind produces another crash in another test that looks similar: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../.. -I../../.. -I../../../include -I../../../coregrind -I../../../include

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- So it's just bad codegen for <=> comparisons. Thanks, Barry. The library part is a red herring, the operator> synthesized from <=> is fine to use, it just produces bad code (with GCC, but not Clang).

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 --- Comment #5 from Barry Revzin --- Sorry meant to actually copy the reduction: #include bool compare_count(int a, int b) { return a > b; } bool compare(int a, int b) { return (a <=> b) > 0; } which generates: compare_count(int,

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 Barry Revzin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||barry.revzin at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > If you write it like this you get good codegen: I think I messed up my testing, and it doesn't help. GCC always chooses the synthesized operator> instead

[Bug target/100182] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] Miscompilation of atomic_float/1.cc and atomic_float/wait_notify.cc on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/100182] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] Miscompilation of atomic_float/1.cc and atomic_float/wait_notify.cc on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182 --- Comment #26 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0d277114b4b2d0cb386c7abe409a81ca29d9d61d commit r8-10926-g0d277114b4b2d0cb386c7abe409a81ca29d9d61d Author: Uros Bizjak

[Bug target/100182] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] Miscompilation of atomic_float/1.cc and atomic_float/wait_notify.cc on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182 --- Comment #25 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be20ca1d4ff79baf7425a48bb887495e1ea8f788 commit r9-9472-gbe20ca1d4ff79baf7425a48bb887495e1ea8f788 Author: Uros Bizjak

[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] [8 only] 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.5

[Bug middle-end/95810] [8 only] Spurious UBSan warning when computing the opposite of the absolute value of INT_MIN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95810 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.5 Summary|Spurious UBSan

[Bug middle-end/100323] New: #pragma and attribute optimize don't enable inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100323 Bug ID: 100323 Summary: #pragma and attribute optimize don't enable inlining Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/100322] Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Maybe related to either PR 94006 or PR 94566

[Bug libstdc++/97930] pair is not a structural type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97930 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|12.0|11.2 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan

[Bug libstdc++/97930] pair is not a structural type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97930 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8767ee9f9355a63bfeb8318df32bc39c5b0f3ad commit r12-225-gc8767ee9f9355a63bfeb8318df32bc39c5b0f3ad Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/100322] New: Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100322 Bug ID: 100322 Summary: Switching from std=c++17 to std=c++20 causes performance regression in relationals Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/99957] Ill-formed std::pair construction supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/100311] UB in sel-sched.c:init_regs_for_mode with -march=armv8-m.base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100311 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Earnshaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:59f5d16f2c5db4d9592c8ce6453afe81334bb012 commit r12-222-g59f5d16f2c5db4d9592c8ce6453afe81334bb012 Author: Richard Earnshaw

[Bug target/100305] [10/11/12 Regression] aarch64: ICE in output_operand_lossage with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] aarch64: |[10/11/12 Regression]

[Bug libstdc++/99957] Ill-formed std::pair construction supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e1543e694dadf1ea70eb72325219bc0cdc914a35 commit r12-221-ge1543e694dadf1ea70eb72325219bc0cdc914a35 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/99957] Ill-formed std::pair construction supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99957 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d96db15967e78d7cecea3b1cf3169ceb924678ac commit r12-220-gd96db15967e78d7cecea3b1cf3169ceb924678ac Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug target/100305] [11/12 Regression] aarch64: ICE in output_operand_lossage with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100305 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:668df9e769e7d89bcefa07f72b68dcae9a8f3970 commit r12-219-g668df9e769e7d89bcefa07f72b68dcae9a8f3970 Author: Richard Sandiford

[Bug middle-end/100309] [11/12 regression] false positive -Wstringop-overflow/stringop-overread/array-bounds on reinterpret_cast'd integers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100309 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end CC|

[Bug middle-end/99578] gcc-11 -Warray-bounds or -Wstringop-overread warning when accessing a pointer from integer literal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99578 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sciresm.gccbugzilla at gmail dot c

[Bug middle-end/100307] [11/12 Regression] spurious -Wplacement-new with negative pointer offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100307 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] Wrong|[11/12 Regression] spurious

[Bug c++/68942] overly strict use of deleted function before argument-dependent lookup (ADL)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68942 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/94418] Please make reverse_iterator nothrow constructible when possible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94418 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Implemented downstream: https://gitlab.com/jonathan-wakely/gcc

[Bug target/100320] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] 32-bit x86 memcpy is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100320 --- Comment #2 from Denis Vlasenko --- The relevant code in current git seems to be: static void expand_set_or_cpymem_via_rep (rtx destmem, rtx srcmem, rtx destptr, rtx srcptr, rtx value, rtx orig_value,

[Bug target/100320] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] 32-bit x86 memcpy is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100320 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/100321] New: [OpenMP][nvptx] (Con't) Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100321 Bug ID: 100321 Summary: [OpenMP][nvptx] (Con't) Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for' Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status:

[Bug c++/96560] Substitution triggers compile-time error when it shouldn't

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96560 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-28 CC|

[Bug c++/100319] Incorrect check for detach clause argument in data-sharing clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100319 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 50702 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50702=edit gcc11-pr100319.patch Untested fix.

[Bug c/100320] New: regression: 32-bit x86 memcpy is suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100320 Bug ID: 100320 Summary: regression: 32-bit x86 memcpy is suboptimal Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/100319] Incorrect check for detach clause argument in data-sharing clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100319 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/100319] New: Incorrect check for detach clause argument in data-sharing clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100319 Bug ID: 100319 Summary: Incorrect check for detach clause argument in data-sharing clauses Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/100240] Compiler crashes with segmentation fault on a chrono library using nvcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100240 Peter Taraba changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|WAITING

[Bug c++/100102] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in tsubst, at cp/pt.c:15310

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100102 Peter Taraba changed: What|Removed |Added CC||taraba.peter at mail dot com ---

[Bug middle-end/100262] warning on sparc64: 'strcmp' reading 1 or more bytes from a region of size 0 [-Werror=stringop-overread]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100262 --- Comment #6 from Romain Naour --- Hello, Thanks for the help and confirm that's a problem on the existing code, not on gcc. Best regards, Romain

[Bug middle-end/100318] New: [OpenMP] Offloading with two identically named static functions fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100318 Bug ID: 100318 Summary: [OpenMP] Offloading with two identically named static functions fails Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openmp

[Bug target/100232] [OpenMP][nvptx] Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100232 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-April/569038.html

[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- An the reason it hasn't been backported to 8 branch is that ABSU_EXPR doesn't exist there.

[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/100263] [11/12 Regression] RTL optimizers miscompile loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100263 --- Comment #11 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #10) > OK, then it's probably better to add it to: > > if (!is_a (reg_mode[regno], _mode) > || !MODES_OK_FOR_MOVE2ADD (mode, old_mode))

[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 Alex Peshkoff changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.2.0 --- Comment #2 from Alex

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > I don't think I have the necessary permissions, but I may be missing > something > obvious... Did you try to click on 'take' in Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone (edit) (take) ? If

[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.0, 9.3.1 Known to fail|

[Bug target/100182] [8/9/10/11/12 Regression] Miscompilation of atomic_float/1.cc and atomic_float/wait_notify.cc on i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100182 --- Comment #24 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39e8bfe7217898e8d21bcc55efe6992fbde262f1 commit r10-9775-g39e8bfe7217898e8d21bcc55efe6992fbde262f1 Author: Uros Bizjak

[Bug target/100232] [OpenMP][nvptx] Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100232 --- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries --- This commit: ... commit 3af3bec2e4d344bd54a134d8b2263f44d788c3d8 Author: Richard Sandiford Date: Mon May 4 21:21:16 2020 +0100 internal-fn: Avoid dropping the lhs of some calls [PR94941] ... adds:

[Bug target/82735] _mm256_zeroupper does not invalidate previously computed registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82735 --- Comment #13 from Marcin Ślusarz --- FTR, to reproduce this problem with gcc 9 and 10 I had to either replace -mavx with -march=native or add -mtune=native. The problem starts reproducing with -march=haswell.

[Bug rtl-optimization/100317] New: 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100317 Bug ID: 100317 Summary: 64-bit integer compare gives wrong result when MIN_INT64 is one of the operands Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/100232] [OpenMP][nvptx] Reduction fails with optimization and 'loop'/'for simd' but not with 'for'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100232 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/92621] Problems with memory handling with allocatable intent(out) arrays with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 --- Comment #10 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9) > > Patch (version 2) posted: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-April/055991.html > > Please assign the PR to yourself when

[Bug debug/100303] [11/12 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure (length) with -O -fno-dce -ftracer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100303 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

  1   2   >