[Bug target/100865] pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- > > Also should broadcast from register be used to avoid memory load? I think yes as long as memory load from constant pool.

[Bug libstdc++/100863] 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_init.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Palka --- The problem seems to be that default initialization of an unordered_map/set only default initializes the allocator object rather than value initializing it. This means the allocator's state doesn't get

[Bug target/100865] pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- (insn 6 5 9 2 (set (reg:V1TI 84) (mem/u/c:V1TI (symbol_ref/u:DI ("*.LC0") [flags 0x2]) [0 S16 A128])) "test.c":5:3 1474 {movv1ti_internal} (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_vector:V1TI [

[Bug tree-optimization/100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I have a patch, (for bitop (bit_and bit_ior) rbitop (bit_ior bit_and) /* Similar but for comparisons which have been inverted already, Note it is hard to similulate inverted tcc_comparison

[Bug target/100865] New: pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 Bug ID: 100865 Summary: pass_data_constant_pool_broadcast doesn't work on TImode Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/100864] (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc |powerpc64le CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||100864 --- Comment #6 from Andrew

[Bug tree-optimization/100864] New: (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100864 Bug ID: 100864 Summary: (a&!b) | b is not opimized to a | b for conditionals Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Created attachment 50905 [details] > Patch which is in testing (needs testcases) > > As I said for the case in this PR, it needs >

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ams at gnu dot org --- Comment #10 from

[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 --- Comment #4 from Michael Meissner --- Note, in looking at Carl's patch, it is only for adding the built-ins. I don't believe it adds direct support for {,u}divti3 and {,u}moddti3 to implement these for normal __int128 variables.

[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01

[Bug tree-optimization/59660] We fail to optimize common boolean checks pre-inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59660 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Last

[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- The virtual dtor forces an out-of-line call to the Grommet dtor which then calls ::operator delete(), so the warning has nothing to complain about. It sees this code (compile with

[Bug tree-optimization/67731] Combine of OR'ed bitfields should use bit-test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67731 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 --- Comment #2 from Joseph C. Sible --- Wait, if it's just checking whether the calls to operator new and operator delete match up, then why does adding "virtual ~Widget() {}" make the warning go away?

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 50905 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50905=edit Patch which is in testing (needs testcases) As I said for the case in this PR, it needs

[Bug middle-end/100861] False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c/100854] TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100854 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote: > This could be considered a bug in TS 18661-3 which stipulates that > __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ take backwards-incompatible

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- Hi Alexander, You do not say what the actual target you used is? powerpc-linux, powerpc64-linux, powerpc64le-linux, something else entirely?

[Bug tree-optimization/96923] Failure to optimize a select-related bool pattern to or+not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96923 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/97690] (cond ? 2 : 0) is not optimized to int(cond) << 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97690 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by William Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3d75b5cd9a362172838825c7083a3afa2403735a commit r11-8496-g3d75b5cd9a362172838825c7083a3afa2403735a Author: Bill Schmidt

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #4 from Bill Schmidt --- I cannot reproduce failures for powerpc64le on P10 LE.

[Bug libstdc++/100863] New: 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_init.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100863 Bug ID: 100863 Summary: 23_containers/unordered_{map,set}/allocator/default_in it.cc still fail at runtime even after r12-1153 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status:

[Bug middle-end/100685] #pragma GCC push_options ineffective for optimize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Thanks. I belatedly realized that the test case didn't reproduce the problem I was seeing. The one below demonstrates that the -O1 option does override the -O2 set earlier. Sorry for the noise! $ cat

[Bug c++/65816] Constructor delegation does not perform zero-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac0bc21bd634a334ba8f323c39a11f01dfdc2aae commit r12-1153-gac0bc21bd634a334ba8f323c39a11f01dfdc2aae Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug c++/100862] New: using enum member access fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100862 Bug ID: 100862 Summary: using enum member access fail Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/100861] New: False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100861 Bug ID: 100861 Summary: False positive -Wmismatched-new-delete with destroying operator delete Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug c++/100847] M1 chip: many functions not declared in "std" or "::"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100847 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/100797] [10/11 Regression] using declaration causing virtual call with wrongly adjusted this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug fortran/86115] move_alloc for class(*) containing value of type character(len=*) looses data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86115 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Looking at the dump tree, it appears that the _vptr component is properly copied, but the _len component is not. But this one is needed for unlimited polymorphics.

[Bug target/100799] Stackoverflow in optimized code on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100799 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to CVS Commits from comment #17) Note this is the only start of the patches, this is not fully fixed, it is being worked on in a series of patches rather than one big one.

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f55df63154a39d67ef5b24def7044bf87300831 commit r12-1152-g9f55df63154a39d67ef5b24def7044bf87300831 Author: Andrew Pinski Date:

[Bug fortran/100860] class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 --- Comment #2 from Dominique d'Humieres --- WORKSFORME from GCC7 up to trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/95481] Failure to optimize infinite recursion for empty struct types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/95481] Failure to optimize infinite recursion for empty struct types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95481 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ea418485c700494c3efdc282854c5f5a08702416 commit r12-1151-gea418485c700494c3efdc282854c5f5a08702416 Author: Andrew Pinski Date:

[Bug fortran/86115] move_alloc for class(*) containing value of type character(len=*) looses data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86115 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/100860] class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-01

[Bug fortran/100860] New: class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 Bug ID: 100860 Summary: class(*) type is (character(*)) produces a segmentation fault when run Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/65816] Constructor delegation does not perform zero-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65816 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug fortran/100855] pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- If you do not care about correct rounding, you can replace sum = sum + (i ** (0.05 + n)) by sum = sum + exp (log (real(i)) * (0.05 + n)) I think __builtin_powf and powf do care. I do

[Bug c++/91859] Using destroying delete should not clobber stores to the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.2 Status|NEW

[Bug target/99725] arm: ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_adjust_cfa with -mcmse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99725 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/99725] arm: ICE in dwarf2out_frame_debug_adjust_cfa with -mcmse

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99725 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alex Coplan : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1cbde1725cac9ae53b892449c847f28f977f3a9b commit r10-9877-g1cbde1725cac9ae53b892449c847f28f977f3a9b Author: Alex Coplan

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #3 from Bill Schmidt --- Fixed the BE problem. Will look into the GCC11 report.

[Bug fortran/100855] pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100850] [coroutine] Wrong addresses of variables captured by reference into lambda co-routines.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100850 --- Comment #3 from Vlad --- My bad. It's actually a UB. The lambda lifetime is just over by the moment of resumption of the co-routine.

[Bug testsuite/100750] new test case gcc.target/powerpc/rop-5.c fails on BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100750 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:250cf86735fc9e088cc2309c520adb655790eb99 commit r12-1147-g250cf86735fc9e088cc2309c520adb655790eb99 Author: Bill Schmidt Date:

[Bug libstdc++/100833] ranges::advance should return n when i == bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d8326291695c0f13124c232ddf4fd34e3310e649 commit r12-1146-gd8326291695c0f13124c232ddf4fd34e3310e649 Author: Jonathan Wakely

[Bug c++/95719] [10/11 Regression] ICE in lookup_vfn_in_binfo at gcc/cp/class.c:2459 since r11-954-g0ddb93ce77374004

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b commit r10-9876-g1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/100797] [10/11 Regression] using declaration causing virtual call with wrongly adjusted this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b commit r10-9876-g1027e8c8837d9d4933946f2888d85deef2cf850b Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/91859] Using destroying delete should not clobber stores to the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee3edeb01eca1cc8d7ebe777b4adb333f0c1118a commit r11-8495-gee3edeb01eca1cc8d7ebe777b4adb333f0c1118a Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/95719] [10/11 Regression] ICE in lookup_vfn_in_binfo at gcc/cp/class.c:2459 since r11-954-g0ddb93ce77374004

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95719 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 commit r11-8494-g7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/100797] [10/11 Regression] using declaration causing virtual call with wrongly adjusted this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100797 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 commit r11-8494-g7c61ce59421547194647a847263b2b9065a26e03 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/91859] Using destroying delete should not clobber stores to the object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91859 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf2b7020ee8e9745ede527b0a3b2e0ffbafd492b commit r12-1145-gcf2b7020ee8e9745ede527b0a3b2e0ffbafd492b Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug fortran/59202] Erroneous argument aliasing with defined assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59202 Vladimir Fuka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vladimir.fuka at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/94492] no way to silence -Wdeprecated-copy for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:620cd7861e1266991c9c2a82e1e2d5f4d723ec88 commit r12-1144-g620cd7861e1266991c9c2a82e1e2d5f4d723ec88 Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug c++/100859] New: ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, at cp/pt.c:17520

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100859 Bug ID: 100859 Summary: ICE in tsubst_omp_clauses, at cp/pt.c:17520 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openmp Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/100858] New: Simple common code hoisting is not performed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100858 Bug ID: 100858 Summary: Simple common code hoisting is not performed Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/100857] New: Simple common code sinking is not performed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100857 Bug ID: 100857 Summary: Simple common code sinking is not performed Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/100833] ranges::advance should return n when i == bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/100787] [12 Regression] Bootstrap failure caused by r12-1077

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100787 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/100809] PPC: __int128 divide/modulo does not use P10 instructions vdivsq/vdivuq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100809 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- I believe this work is pending, but the patches are still under review.

[Bug c++/67593] Partial specialization: "Template argument involves template parameters"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67593 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pubby.8 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug c++/51155] Incorrect sizeof and sizeof... behavior in template partial specialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51155 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/100685] #pragma GCC push_options ineffective for optimize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100685 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/100841] xtensa-linux: dwarf2cfi.c:291:12: error: comparison of integer expressions of different signedness: 'const unsigned int' and 'int'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100841 --- Comment #2 from Jan-Benedict Glaw --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Guess following could fix it > --- gcc/config/xtensa/xtensa.h.jj 2021-01-04 10:25:45.570157539 +0100 > +++ gcc/config/xtensa/xtensa.h2021-06-01

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Firas Khalil Khana from comment #4) > Glad I could help. Thanks for your time and effort! You're welcome. We thank you for reporting that!

[Bug target/100643] [11/12 Regression] ICE in ix86_mangle_function_version_assembler_name, at config/i386/i386-features.c:2809 since r11-7693-g1c7bec8bfbc5457c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100643 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 --- Comment #4 from Firas Khalil Khana --- Glad I could help. Thanks for your time and effort!

[Bug fortran/42954] [9/10/11/12 regression] TARGET_*_CPP_BUILTINS issues with gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42954 --- Comment #35 from Bill Long --- A lot of users have moved to the 10.X series of compilers, and the adventurous ones to 11.X. Will the fixes also appear in those compilers?

[Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 --- Comment #6 from vopl at bk dot ru --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > Yes, I realise that, but I think that is the same rule that means you can't > change the result of overload resolution for a given call, But I have a

[Bug target/100856] Arm: Multilib mapping is missing for CDE arguments.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100856 SRINATH PARVATHANENI changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/100856] New: Arm: Multilib mapping is missing for CDE arguments.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100856 Bug ID: 100856 Summary: Arm: Multilib mapping is missing for CDE arguments. Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/100759] [12 regression] ICE for g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C after r12-1039 at gcc/options-save.c:13626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug other/100759] [12 regression] ICE for g++.dg/torture/pr81360.C after r12-1039 at gcc/options-save.c:13626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100759 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b195d84561a5c31108c7bbbd7c5b63fe3cebe35f commit r12-1142-gb195d84561a5c31108c7bbbd7c5b63fe3cebe35f Author: Martin Liska Date:

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9/10/11/12 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #68 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #67) > According to gcc-testresults, we still see: > FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue > "Performing shrink-wrapping" > FAIL:

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9/10/11/12 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 --- Comment #67 from Christophe Lyon --- According to gcc-testresults, we still see: FAIL: gcc.dg/ira-shrinkwrap-prep-1.c scan-rtl-dump pro_and_epilogue "Performing shrink-wrapping" FAIL: gcc.target/arm/addr-modes-float.c scan-assembler

[Bug driver/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #19 from wavexx at thregr dot org --- I don't follow gcc development too closely. I expected this bug to be closed when the relevant patch was applied automatically, but I could test if this still apllied. Which gcc release is

[Bug fortran/100855] New: pow run time gfortran vs ifort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 Bug ID: 100855 Summary: pow run time gfortran vs ifort Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug libstdc++/99453] libstdc++*-gdb.py installation depends on library naming

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f7bc160b4a0f27dce248d1226e3ae7104b0e67b commit r12-1141-g9f7bc160b4a0f27dce248d1226e3ae7104b0e67b Author: Jonathan Wakely

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug other/100826] Add that "-fgcse-after-reload" is enabled at "-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100826 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fdbd0cb73af527f0630f0cbb26edb8584f593fea commit r12-1140-gfdbd0cb73af527f0630f0cbb26edb8584f593fea Author: Martin Liska Date:

[Bug fortran/96012] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.c:2558

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96012 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/71283] Inconsistent location for C++ warning options in the manual

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71283 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.5 |---

[Bug driver/69471] "-march=native" unintentionally breaks further -march/-mtune flags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69471 --- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez --- (In reply to wavexx from comment #17) > I wish this would be given a nudge, considering the patch. This has been > pushed to new releases since 2016 :( I see several patches have been committed

[Bug inline-asm/100785] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_asm_stmt with "m" and bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100785 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/85004] ambiguous diagnostic: passing ‘const S’ as ‘this’ argument discards qualifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85004 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|9.5 |---

[Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, I realise that, but I think that is the same rule that means you can't change the result of overload resolution for a given call, which is why the second definition gets emitted using the same symbol

[Bug rtl-optimization/87871] [9/10/11/12 Regression] testcases fail after r265398 on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87871 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #66 from Richard

[Bug target/84467] Choosing between Integer and NEON for 64-bit operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84467 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/95650] aarch64: Missed optimization storing addition of two shorts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95650 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- AArch32 is able to produce the optimal sequence because the ABI specifies caller widening of parameters. For safety reasons AArch64 takes the opposite approach and requires the callee to narrow

[Bug c/100854] New: TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100854 Bug ID: 100854 Summary: TS 18661-3 and backwards-incompatible setting of __FLT_EVAL_METHOD__ Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/100853] internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:4148

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100853 --- Comment #1 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- Created attachment 50903 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50903=edit repro

[Bug c++/100853] New: internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:4148

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100853 Bug ID: 100853 Summary: internal compiler error: in cp_tree_equal, at cp/tree.c:4148 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/100278] IBM Z: Segmentation fault when building valgrind with -march=z14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100278 Ilya Leoshkevich changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >