[Bug c/90267] [7.3 regression] wrong code generated wth -O2 as missing data dependence base on memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90267 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/90267] [7.3 regression] wrong code generated wth -O2 as missing data dependence base on memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90267 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Use either -fno-strict-aliasing or change STRU_CCH_DLTPC_PARA to use an union and access it via that.

[Bug c++/85679] [DR2094] __is_trivially_copyable returns false with volatile scalar type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85679 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/90266] missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/71535] ICE in LTO1 with -fopenmp offloading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535 Jose Manuel Monsalve Diaz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||josem at udel dot edu ---

[Bug lto/71535] ICE in LTO1 with -fopenmp offloading

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71535 --- Comment #4 from Jose Manuel Monsalve Diaz --- Same for Hotspot of the same benchmarks suite

[Bug target/87213] ICE in final_scan_insn_1, at final.c:3070

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87213 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Target||powerpc*-*-*

[Bug c++/89695] unexpected copying of trivially copyable prvalue arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89695 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- I believe this is required by the ABI for trivially copyable types.

[Bug c++/66268] struct { volatile int x; } should not be trivially copyable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66268 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think DR 2094 makes this report invalid, and GCC correct.

[Bug libstdc++/90266] missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 Richard Smith changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |8.3.0 --- Comment #3 from Richard Smith

[Bug c/90267] New: [7.3 regression] wrong code generated wth -O2 as missing data dependence base on memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90267 Bug ID: 90267 Summary: [7.3 regression] wrong code generated wth -O2 as missing data dependence base on memory Product: gcc Version: 7.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/90253] no warning for cv-qualified selectors in _Generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90253 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org ---

Come join me on Africa Oil & Gas Industry

Africa Oil & Gas Industry: An Africa Business Community Hi, Short term business collaboration. Let me know if you have some time to connect for more details. Contact email: kamhe...@gmail.com. Skype: live:kamhed44. Regards, Kamran Hedayat. Click the link below to Join:

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Created attachment 46250 [details] > run_fast_dce also for LRA > > Sth like this could fix it. I've verified this patch breaks PR90178 again as well. I think

[Bug d/89432] FAIL: libphobos.unittests/druntime/{static,shared}/core.time on CentOS 5.11, Linux 2.6.18

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432 --- Comment #10 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #8) > (In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6) > > Author: ibuclaw > > Date: Wed Apr 24 18:57:36 2019 > > New Revision: 270554 > > > > URL:

[Bug middle-end/90258] [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option since r264052

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/90258] [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option since r264052

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/83118] [7/8/9/10 Regression] Bad intrinsic assignment of class(*) array component of derived type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83118 --- Comment #20 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Rainer, Thanks a million. Unfortunately, we just missed the 9.1 release. Cheers Paul On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 09:59, ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE wrote: > >

[Bug middle-end/89889] worse code compared to clang with alloca()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89889 --- Comment #3 from Lokesh Janghel --- Is there any target hooks for alloca? Should we do the same like __builtin_alloca_with_align (array allocation) or we assume the problem as a target based (prologue/epilogue optimization) issue?

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 46253 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46253=edit gcc9-pr90257.patch Untested patch that fixes PR90178 even when the reversion of reversion of reversion in

[Bug d/89432] FAIL: libphobos.unittests/druntime/{static,shared}/core.time on CentOS 5.11, Linux 2.6.18

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432 --- Comment #8 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to ibuclaw from comment #6) > Author: ibuclaw > Date: Wed Apr 24 18:57:36 2019 > New Revision: 270554 > > URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270554=gcc=rev > Log: > libphobos: Fix FAIL

[Bug d/90261] New: FAIL: libphobos.phobos/std/file.d on CentOS 5.11, Linux 2.6.18

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90261 Bug ID: 90261 Summary: FAIL: libphobos.phobos/std/file.d on CentOS 5.11, Linux 2.6.18 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #7 from Pat Haugen --- Overall 'perf' cycle counts and hot functions. r270483 --- # Overhead Samples Command Shared Object # ... # 91.17%

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- I believe the difference is caused by cfg cleanup without the noop move considering (code_label 34 6 37 9 1 (nil) [2 uses]) (note 37 34 36 9 [bb 9] NOTE_INSN_BASIC_BLOCK) (insn 36 37 53 9 (use (reg/i:DI 0

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #10 from Pat Haugen --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Created attachment 46250 [details] > run_fast_dce also for LRA > > Sth like this could fix it. Yes, that restored the performance.

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On April 26, 2019 4:18:03 PM GMT+02:00, "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 > >--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- >Created attachment 46253

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On April 26, 2019 4:37:24 PM GMT+02:00, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 > >--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de de> --- >On April 26,

[Bug tree-optimization/88797] [7/8/9/10 Regression] Unneeded branch added when function is inlined (function runs faster if not inlined)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88797 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com

[Bug middle-end/90263] New: Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263 Bug ID: 90263 Summary: Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug middle-end/90263] Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Because then you penalize properly maintained targets which do have efficient mempcpy. And even if some targets don't have efficient mempcpy right now, that doesn't mean they can't have it in the future.

[Bug middle-end/90262] New: Inline small constant memmoves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90262 Bug ID: 90262 Summary: Inline small constant memmoves Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end

[Bug middle-end/90263] Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263 --- Comment #2 from Wilco --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > As stated several times in the past, I strongly disagree. Why? GCC already does this for bzero and bcopy.

[Bug target/90178] [9 Regression] Missed optimization: duplicated terminal basic block with -mavx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90178 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED CC|

[Bug middle-end/90263] Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263 --- Comment #4 from Wilco --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Because then you penalize properly maintained targets which do have > efficient mempcpy. And even if some targets don't have efficient mempcpy > right now, that doesn't

[Bug middle-end/90263] Calls to mempcpy should use memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90263 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/90264] New: [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after r270574

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264 Bug ID: 90264 Summary: [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after r270574 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug tree-optimization/90264] [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after r270574

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/90264] [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after r270574

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264 --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It doesn't look like a false positive to me. We set *seq = 0. Assume we do not return -1 from line A. The for loop's initial test will be false because out = *seq = 0 out - *seq must also be zero and if

[Bug middle-end/86172] [meta-bug] issues with -Wnull-dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86172 Bug 86172 depends on bug 90264, which changed state. Bug 90264 Summary: [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after r270574 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264 What|Removed |Added

[Bug libstdc++/90266] missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/90266] missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Which version are you using? (You didn't say) With trunk I get length_error thrown from the first push_back in f or g: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::length_error' what():

[Bug c++/89088] Dllexport for explicit template instantiation missing inline methods

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89088 --- Comment #1 from Martin Storsjö --- FWIW, Clang (when operating in MinGW mode, where it tries to follow what GCC does) also had the same issue. There this issue was fixed by making dllexport export inline methods as well, for template

[Bug c++/90265] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE in build_call_a at gcc/cp/call.c:396 since r268377

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90265 Bug ID: 90265 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE in build_call_a at gcc/cp/call.c:396 since r268377 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug c++/90265] [9/10 Regression] ICE in build_call_a at gcc/cp/call.c:396 since r268377

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90265 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2019-4-26 Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/90266] New: missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 Bug ID: 90266 Summary: missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size() Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/90264] [9/10 Regression] -Wnull-dereference false positive after r270574

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90264 --- Comment #3 from Roman Zhuykov --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #1) > We set *seq = 0. > > Assume we do not return -1 from line A. > > The for loop's initial test will be false because out = *seq = 0 > > out - *seq must also

[Bug c++/89087] Dllexport for explicit template instantiation with nested classes loses nested class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89087 --- Comment #1 from Martin Storsjö --- FWIW, Clang (when operating in MinGW mode, where it tries to follow what GCC does) also had the same issue. There this issue was fixed by emitting definitions for nested classes even if a template

[Bug libstdc++/90266] missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think I fixed this in r263789 for PR 78448 and then changed the return value of max_size() in r265021 for PR 87544.

[Bug libstdc++/90266] missing or broken check for vector::size() exceeding max_size()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90266 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING

[Bug bootstrap/78251] config/gettext.m4 and config/iconv.m4 contaminate CPPFLAGS (can lead to build failures when libunwind-headers from MacPorts is active)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78251 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|config/gettext.m4 and |config/gettext.m4 and

[Bug middle-end/89765] [9/10 Regression] Multiple problems with vec-insert implementation on PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89765 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/90204] [8/9/10 Regression] C code is optimized worse than C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204 --- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, crazylht at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90204 > > --- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from

[Bug rtl-optimization/88879] [9/10 Regression] ICE in sel_target_adjust_priority, at sel-sched.c:3332

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88879 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||26163 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/90242] [UBSAN]: in vn_reference_compute_hash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90242 Vittorio Zecca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeccav at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/90258] [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option since r264052

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end --- Comment #1 from Martin

[Bug rtl-optimization/90259] New: ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: missing REG_EH_REGION note at the end of bb 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90259 Bug ID: 90259 Summary: ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: missing REG_EH_REGION note at the end of bb 4) Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/90249] [9/10 Regression] Code size regression on thumb2 due to sub-optimal register allocation starting with r265398

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90249 --- Comment #3 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #2) > What difference is there on some code of significant size? Do you see > regressions then? > > Of course there are some tiny examples where it now does

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 46250 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46250=edit run_fast_dce also for LRA Sth like this could fix it.

[Bug target/89929] __attribute__((target("avx512bw"))) doesn't work on non avx512bw systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89929 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- So - is the regression of 8% compared to GCC 8? If only to some development branch revision then it doesn't count. As I read it the removed code in question only got added during GCC 9 stage3?

[Bug target/90258] [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option since r264052

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/90258] New: [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option since r264052

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90258 Bug ID: 90258 Summary: [9 Regression] Missing completion for a target option since r264052 Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Let's revert the offending commit on the branch but keep it on trunk for further investigation. PR90178 was only a missed optimization.

[Bug target/89504] Checking ICE in 'gcc.dg/rtl/x86_64/pro_and_epilogue.c'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89504 Vittorio Zecca changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeccav at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug target/90260] New: function multiversioning: template functions not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90260 Bug ID: 90260 Summary: function multiversioning: template functions not supported Product: gcc Version: 8.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug d/89432] FAIL: libphobos.unittests/druntime/{static,shared}/core.time on CentOS 5.11, Linux 2.6.18

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89432 --- Comment #9 from Uroš Bizjak --- FYI, a check for a supported clock type in systemtime.d is also needed, otherwise the test tries to access unsupported ClockType.coarse:

[Bug c++/90243] diagnostic notes that belong to a suppressed error about an uninitialized variable in a constexpr function are still shown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/90191] [9/10 regression] incorrect -Wformat-overflow with --param max-jump-thread-duplication-stmts=17

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90191 --- Comment #5 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko --- (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4) > Actually I think the warning is valid. Ramping up the aggressiveness of the > threader is what ultimately exposes it. [...] > > But AFAICT the warning

[Bug middle-end/90191] [9/10 regression] incorrect -Wformat-overflow with --param max-jump-thread-duplication-stmts=17

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90191 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- NP. It happens to all of us at some point :-)

[Bug other/90257] [9/10 Regression] 8% degradation on cpu2006 403.gcc starting with r270484

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90257 --- Comment #14 from Segher Boessenkool --- I committed as r270601, on gcc-9-branch 2019-04-26 Segher Boessenkool PR other/90257 Revert the revert: 2019-04-21 H.J. Lu PR target/90178 Revert:

[Bug debug/90197] [8/9/10 Regression] Cannot step through simple loop at -O -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90197 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Apr 26 15:38:33 2019 New Revision: 270606 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270606=gcc=rev Log: PR debug/90197 * c-tree.h (c_finish_loop): Add 2 further location_t

[Bug c++/90243] diagnostic notes that belong to a suppressed error about an uninitialized variable in a constexpr function are still shown

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90243 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Apr 26 16:33:02 2019 New Revision: 270610 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270610=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/90243 - orphaned note in uninstantiated constexpr function gcc/cp:

[Bug c++/90173] [9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in strip_declarator_types)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173 Paolo Carlini changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] ICE: |[9 Regression] ICE:

[Bug rtl-optimization/87979] ICE in compute_split_row at modulo-sched.c:2393

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87979 --- Comment #5 from Roman Zhuykov --- Author: zhroma Date: Fri Apr 26 16:04:54 2019 New Revision: 270609 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270609=gcc=rev Log: Backport modulo-sched fixes from mainline 2019-04-23 Roman Zhuykov

[Bug rtl-optimization/84032] ICE in optimize_sc, at modulo-sched.c:1064

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84032 --- Comment #7 from Roman Zhuykov --- Author: zhroma Date: Fri Apr 26 16:04:54 2019 New Revision: 270609 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270609=gcc=rev Log: Backport modulo-sched fixes from mainline 2019-04-23 Roman Zhuykov

[Bug c++/90173] [9/10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in strip_declarator_types)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90173 --- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: paolo Date: Fri Apr 26 14:51:00 2019 New Revision: 270603 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270603=gcc=rev Log: /cp 2019-04-26 Paolo Carlini PR c++/90173 * decl.c