[Bug libstdc++/100889] New: Wrong param type for std::atomic_ref<_Tp*>::wait

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100889 Bug ID: 100889 Summary: Wrong param type for std::atomic_ref<_Tp*>::wait Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug tree-optimization/13563] if-conversion not agressive enough

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13563 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nok.raven at gmail dot com --- Comment

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100857 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/100885] [12 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2671: insn does not satisfy its constraints: {sse4_1_zero_extendv8qiv8hi2}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100885 --- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2) > > With avx512vl Yw should be matched, and w/o avx512bw, only SSE_REGS should > > be matched, why xmm16 is allocated? > > It didn't come from RA, but post_reload

[Bug tree-optimization/78528] Recursion not optimized for structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78528 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- tailr1: D.2500 = strlen (_2); : lhs$m_value_10 = D.2500.m_value; _14 = lhs$m_value_10 + 1; D.2496.m_value = _14; : return D.2496; For tailr on structures we only allow for structure copies

[Bug target/43892] PowerPC suboptimal "add with carry" optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892 --- Comment #33 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #32) > So it is more about the back-end of PowerPC at this point. For the testcase === typedef unsigned int u32; typedef unsigned long long u64; u32 f(u32 a,

[Bug tree-optimization/67998] redundant test for 0 when also checking inequality

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67998 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/68000] Suboptimal ternary operator codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68000 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/100877] g++ freezes system by consuming infinite amount of memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100877 Steven Sun changed: What|Removed |Added CC||StevenSun2021 at hotmail dot com ---

[Bug target/100885] [12 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2671: insn does not satisfy its constraints: {sse4_1_zero_extendv8qiv8hi2}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100885 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- > With avx512vl Yw should be matched, and w/o avx512bw, only SSE_REGS should > be matched, why xmm16 is allocated? It didn't come from RA, but post_reload splitter. 18103(define_insn_and_split

[Bug tree-optimization/22199] fold does not optimize (int)ABS_EXPR<(long long)(int_var)>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22199 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/100877] g++ freezes system by consuming infinite amount of memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100877 --- Comment #1 from Steven Sun --- I look at the call stack. Most of the time is wasted on `dump_template_parms` in `gcc/cp/error.c`. I commented several functions calling it: (I'm using stage-1 compiler) `announce_function` in `gcc/toplev.c`

[Bug tree-optimization/64946] [AArch64] gcc.target/aarch64/vect-abs-compile.c - "abs" vectorization fails for char/short types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64946 Bug 64946 depends on bug 22199, which changed state. Bug 22199 Summary: fold does not optimize (int)ABS_EXPR<(long long)(int_var)> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22199 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 22199, which changed state. Bug 22199 Summary: fold does not optimize (int)ABS_EXPR<(long long)(int_var)> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22199 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/22199] fold does not optimize (int)ABS_EXPR<(long long)(int_var)>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22199 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/100885] [12 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2671: insn does not satisfy its constraints: {sse4_1_zero_extendv8qiv8hi2}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100885 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- 152(define_register_constraint "Yw" 153 "TARGET_AVX512BW && TARGET_AVX512VL ? ALL_SSE_REGS : TARGET_SSE ? SSE_REGS : NO_REGS" 154 "@internal Any EVEX encodable SSE register (@code{%xmm0-%xmm31}) for AVX512BW

[Bug tree-optimization/27109] Simplify "a - 10 > 150" into "a > 160" when range of a is known (in VRP or somewhere else)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27109 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2007-07-01 00:53:44 |2021-6-2 --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug tree-optimization/29738] Missed constant propagation into loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29738 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/35306] Missing expression simplication for conditional OR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35306 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/45861] Possible missed optimization - array ops vs shift-and-mask

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45861 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-02-03 00:00:00 |2021-6-2 --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/38126] suboptimal code for (a && b || !a && !b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38126 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- For the original testcase with GCC 7, we get the same(similar enough) code gen for both functions now. foo: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc testq %rdi, %rdi setne %al testq %rsi,

[Bug tree-optimization/27504] x && (x & y) not optimized to x & y

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27504 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2012-01-04 00:00:00 |2021-6-2 --- Comment #3 from Andrew

[Bug testsuite/100749] [12 regression] gcc.dg/pch/valid-1.c fails after r12-949

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100749 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/39870] VRP can't see through cast to unsigned

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39870 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2009-04-23 15:54:45 |2021-6-2 --- Comment #16 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/36384] folding of conversion for BOOLEAN_TYPE or ENUMERAL_TYPE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36384 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- during VRP1 removes the casts now. So I don't know if this bug should be closed as fixed or not.

[Bug target/100865] Convert CONST_WIDE_INT to broadcast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- A small benchmark: https://gitlab.com/x86-benchmarks/microbenchmark/-/tree/memset/broadcast shows that broadcast is a little bit faster on Intel Core i7-8559U: [hjl@gnu-cfl-2 microbenchmark]$ make gcc -g -I.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94492 --- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev --- Could this be backported? The issue affects every release with -Wdeprecated-copy, which are GCC 9+.

[Bug target/45548] Add with carry - missed optimization on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45548 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/43892] PowerPC suboptimal "add with carry" optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892 --- Comment #32 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > No. > > Actually compilable testcase: > > typedef unsigned int u32; > > u32 > add32carry(u32 sum, u32 x) > { > u32 z = sum + x; > if (sum + x < x) >

[Bug target/100865] Convert CONST_WIDE_INT to broadcast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100865 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 50916 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50916=edit x86: Convert CONST_WIDE_INT to broadcast in move expanders

[Bug target/35646] gcc is not using the overflow flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35646 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/100407] New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #50914|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug testsuite/100407] New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 50914 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50914=edit attr-retain-1.s Here is my attr-retain-1.s. Please upload your attr-retain-1.s.

[Bug testsuite/100407] New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- I can't reproduce it with GCC master, glibc 2.33 and binutils 2.36 branch.

[Bug rtl-optimization/10945] Trivial Bit Twiddling Optimizations Not Performed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10945 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |7.0 Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/20083] Missed optimization with conditional and basically ||

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20083 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||96923 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug target/95967] Poor aarch64 vector constructor code when using arm_neon.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95967 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||93237 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/52254] VRP does not fold (~a) & N to a ^ N if a has range [0, N]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52254 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug gcov-profile/100788] Internal compiler error related to #line macros(?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100788 --- Comment #11 from seberg --- Does that mean that fixing the `#line` directives (or inserting additional ones) should be able to fix the issue? (Or work around it, if you consider it a bug.) I tried to figure out where the `#line`

[Bug target/100736] ICE: unrecognizable insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100736 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-03

[Bug target/100703] __vector_pair and __vector_quad cannot be passed by reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100703 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- This compiles just fine for me, even with -O0. Does this only happen with some older version of the compiler? Are some special flags needed?

[Bug tree-optimization/100883] ifcombine should use (gimple) match and simplify instead of fold

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100883 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0

[Bug tree-optimization/100883] ifcombine should use (gimple) match and simplify instead of fold

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100883 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/100407] New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 --- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- It does not fail on LE.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100858 --- Comment #2 from Nikita Kniazev --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > That's really a duplicate of 100858 - this case can be handled by sinking as > well > since we "sink" the return. Make it > > void bar(); > > int foo(bool

[Bug rtl-optimization/98777] [11 Regression] ICE in update_equiv at gcc/lra-constraints.c:504 since r11-6819-g4334b52427420312

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98777 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Przemyslaw Wirkus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05f6971ac40912ef062915f88b3ea0bf27278285 commit r10-9882-g05f6971ac40912ef062915f88b3ea0bf27278285 Author: Vladimir N.

[Bug rtl-optimization/98722] [11 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1004 since r11-6615-gcf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98722 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Przemyslaw Wirkus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1791b11d9cae388ae18a768eeb96c998439c986a commit r10-9881-g1791b11d9cae388ae18a768eeb96c998439c986a Author: Vladimir N.

[Bug target/97969] [9/10 Regression][ARM/Thumb] Certain combo of codegen options leads to compilation infinite loop with growing memory use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969 --- Comment #27 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Przemyslaw Wirkus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eb13f3f81d56910626529af52e03e74770ffca98 commit r10-9880-geb13f3f81d56910626529af52e03e74770ffca98 Author: Vladimir

[Bug middle-end/100876] -Wmismatched-new-delete should understand placement new when it's not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Target Milestone|---

[Bug c/100888] New: ICE: symtab_node::verify failed, symtab_node::verify()

20210602 (experimental) [master revision :5b6bc0f6e:b75978d14fc35981ffd8bf060ee52300db4dae50] (GCC) $ cat mutant.c register __sys_res asm("r10"); r10() {} $ gcc-trunk mutant.c mutant.c:1:10: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘__sys_res’ [-Wimplicit-int] 1 | register __s

[Bug fortran/100194] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_create_temp_array, at fortran/trans-array.c:1351

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100194 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- We are hitting the assert 1351 gcc_assert (ss->dimen > 0); in gfc_trans_create_temp_array which does not handle assumed rank yet. (here ss->dimen = -1).

[Bug testsuite/100749] [12 regression] gcc.dg/pch/valid-1.c fails after r12-949

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100749 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/100706] Invalid instructions in plt calls on PPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100706 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/100264] REE does not work on PARALLEL expressions with a single register SET child

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100264 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/100264] REE does not work on PARALLEL expressions with a single register SET child

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100264 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jim Wilson : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5ba2eaf7032f234fdcf11d9cfc513ce7be0a255 commit r12-1168-gd5ba2eaf7032f234fdcf11d9cfc513ce7be0a255 Author: Christoph Muellner Date:

[Bug target/100887] New: [12 Regression] ICE: in ix86_expand_vector_init_concat, at config/i386/i386-expand.c:14178 with -mavx512f and __builtin_shufflevector()

orted LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 12.0.0 20210602 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug fortran/100886] New: Variable character pointer within a Fortran derived type can't determine the shape(mold) of the target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100886 Bug ID: 100886 Summary: Variable character pointer within a Fortran derived type can't determine the shape(mold) of the target Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status:

[Bug target/100885] New: [12 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2671: insn does not satisfy its constraints: {sse4_1_zero_extendv8qiv8hi2}

--with-as=/usr/bin/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-as --disable-libstdcxx-pch --prefix=/repo/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r12-1164-20210602094549-g659cc7d6320-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-amd64 Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 12.0.0 20210602 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug c++/100884] New: Comparing unsigned 32 bit integer values generates 64 bit compare instructions when optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100884 Bug ID: 100884 Summary: Comparing unsigned 32 bit integer values generates 64 bit compare instructions when optimized Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[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 #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:50b1de860a58bf85b40a72219bc2fdfaf0dff355 commit r12-1167-g50b1de860a58bf85b40a72219bc2fdfaf0dff355 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug sanitizer/71458] ICE with -fsanitize=bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71458 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/100407] New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to seurer from comment #2) > I got it to fail on the gcc110 gcc farm machine. > > g:659cc7d6320aae7ab390b5886f0efed22f78e244, r12-1164 > make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32}' >

[Bug testsuite/100407] New test cases attr-retain-*.c fail after their introduction in r11-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100407 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I got it to fail on the gcc110 gcc farm machine. g:659cc7d6320aae7ab390b5886f0efed22f78e244, r12-1164 make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32}'

[Bug tree-optimization/100883] New: ifcombine should use (gimple) match and simplify instead of fold

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100883 Bug ID: 100883 Summary: ifcombine should use (gimple) match and simplify instead of fold Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 96674, which changed state. Bug 96674 Summary: Failure to optimize combination of comparisons to dec+compare https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/96674] Failure to optimize combination of comparisons to dec+compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug d/100882] New: ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2755

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100882 Bug ID: 100882 Summary: ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2755 Product: gcc Version: 9.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/100881] New: [c++ modules][possible bug?] default arguments break when the default argument's type isn't explicitly included/exported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100881 Bug ID: 100881 Summary: [c++ modules][possible bug?] default arguments break when the default argument's type isn't explicitly included/exported Product: gcc

[Bug middle-end/100880] New: The build should error out for define_insn without insn template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100880 Bug ID: 100880 Summary: The build should error out for define_insn without insn template Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/100838] [11/12 Regression] -fno-elide-constructors for C++14 missing required destructor call since r11-5872-g4eb28483004f8291

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100838 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:63d182b29306e582bfb151cf762820211ea1cc7e commit r12-1165-g63d182b29306e582bfb151cf762820211ea1cc7e Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug middle-end/100876] -Wmismatched-new-delete should understand placement new when it's not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/100876] -Wmismatched-new-delete should understand placement new when it's not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||100406 Known to fail|

[Bug c++/100879] New: gcc is complaining of a signed compare when comparing enums of different types (same underlying type)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100879 Bug ID: 100879 Summary: gcc is complaining of a signed compare when comparing enums of different types (same underlying type) Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status:

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100855 --- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres --- On a MacOS, Corei9, 2.4Ghz, the program runs in ~1s, almost indpendtly of the option level. This PR remind me an old problem in which the transcendental functions were almost slower for REAL(4) then

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 TC changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #7 from TC

[Bug sanitizer/100878] New: enabling UBSAN leads to false positive `'this' pointer is null` when casting lambda to function pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100878 Bug ID: 100878 Summary: enabling UBSAN leads to false positive `'this' pointer is null` when casting lambda to function pointer Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status:

[Bug c++/100592] Bogus "qualifiers cannot be applied" error with reference type produced by dependent alias template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100592 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/100808] PPC: ISA 3.1 builtin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808 --- Comment #3 from Jens Seifert --- - Avoid additional "int" unsigned long long int => unsigned long long Why? Those are exactly the same types! Yes, but the rest of the documentation uses unsigned long long. This is just for consistency

[Bug target/100808] PPC: ISA 3.1 builtin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jens Seifert from comment #0) > - Avoid additional "int" unsigned long long int => unsigned long long Why? Those are exactly the same types! > - add missing line breaks between builtins

[Bug target/100868] PPC: Inefficient code for vec_reve(vector double)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100868 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/100876] -Wmismatched-new-delete should either look through or ignore placement new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-02 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/100877] New: g++ freezes system by consuming infinite amount of memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100877 Bug ID: 100877 Summary: g++ freezes system by consuming infinite amount of memory Product: gcc Version: 11.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/100866] PPC: Inefficient code for vec_revb(vector unsigned short) < P9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100866 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-*-*-* |powerpc*

[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 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/100872] [12 Regression] [OpenMP] internal compiler error: tree check: expected integer_cst, have mult_expr in simd_clone_clauses_extract, at omp-simd-clone.c:253

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100872 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug middle-end/100872] [12 Regression] [OpenMP] internal compiler error: tree check: expected integer_cst, have mult_expr in simd_clone_clauses_extract, at omp-simd-clone.c:253

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100872 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/100876] New: -Wmismatched-new-delete should either look through or ignore placement new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100876 Bug ID: 100876 Summary: -Wmismatched-new-delete should either look through or ignore placement new Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug libstdc++/100676] Redeclaring __failed_assertion() at every point of use of __glibcxx_assert breaks Clang CUDA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100676 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/100676] Redeclaring __failed_assertion() at every point of use of __glibcxx_assert breaks Clang CUDA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100676 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10c58754a862470484eca81623b71e6851470bb6 commit r11-8503-g10c58754a862470484eca81623b71e6851470bb6 Author: Jonathan

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100833 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:88ed4abb351117f3b7ef9174b3f538c73e6012c7 commit r11-8502-g88ed4abb351117f3b7ef9174b3f538c73e6012c7 Author: Jonathan

[Bug libstdc++/100768] Range iterator operations should be function objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100768 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f2b76257e9a487fd2c7265094f7b4d1bd46f5f03 commit r11-8501-gf2b76257e9a487fd2c7265094f7b4d1bd46f5f03 Author: Jonathan

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99453 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ad4c21f0f59b52357019148ec94d767aa2acd8f2 commit r11-8500-gad4c21f0f59b52357019148ec94d767aa2acd8f2 Author: Jonathan

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 Tom Robinson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100860 --- Comment #3 from Tom Robinson --- I tried with the main (12.0.0) and this code ran. I will try it in with our main codebase to confirm it works there too.

[Bug ipa/99122] [10 Regression] ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:733

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122 --- Comment #35 from Eric Botcazou --- > interestingly I see > > a.9_70 = .builtin_alloca_with_align (iftmp.8_1, 8); > (*a.9_70) = inline22.get_zero (); [static-chain: ] [return slot > optimization] > > so there's no WITH_SIZE_EXPR, but

[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 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Version|11.0

[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 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100862 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug ipa/99122] [10 Regression] ICE in force_constant_size, at gimplify.c:733

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99122 --- Comment #34 from Richard Biener --- interestingly I see a.9_70 = .builtin_alloca_with_align (iftmp.8_1, 8); (*a.9_70) = inline22.get_zero (); [static-chain: ] [return slot optimization] so there's no WITH_SIZE_EXPR, but the return

  1   2   >