[Bug c/66773] sign-compare warning for == and != are pretty useless

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773 --- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > Hi Daniel, > > (In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #9) > > Problems; > > > > * Code that performs comparison properly gets a warning. > > You

[Bug c++/48920] typename specifier should not ignore non-type names

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48920 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > For the first testcase [basic.scope.class] says no diagnostic required, > doesn't it? ok but what about adding an optional one though?

[Bug c++/56879] -Weffc++ warns about non-virtual base class destructor even if it is protected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56879 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/81930] [meta-bug] Issues with -Weffc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81930 Bug 81930 depends on bug 56879, which changed state. Bug 56879 Summary: -Weffc++ warns about non-virtual base class destructor even if it is protected https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56879 What|Removed

[Bug c++/22395] -Weffc++ shouldn't warn about non-virtual dtor of private subclasses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22395 --- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > private inheritance doesn't mean the destructor can't be called with the > wrong static type > > class Foo { > public: > ~Foo() {} > virtual void f()

[Bug c++/16168] -Weffc++ item 14 improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16168 --- Comment #11 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Oren Ben-Kiki from comment #10) > All good points, which you could say about many opened bugs. > > The `-Weffc++` flag is a useful tool to keep large code bases working, even > when written by

[Bug c/66773] sign-compare warning for == and != are pretty useless

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773 --- Comment #12 from Daniel Marjamäki --- > Do you have examples of perfectly fine code where you get a warning? So, how would you fix the warning for `f`? Many programmers would "fix" it with a cast. Assuming that `s` and `u` can have

[Bug c++/55809] g++ doesn't differentiate elaborated type specifier and typename specifier in dependent types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55809 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/92566] rs6000_preferred_simd_mode isn't very good

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566 --- Comment #12 from Kewen Lin --- FWIW, I did some statistics collection with regression testing on P8 machine, the #hits on early return is 516, while the other # is 1147412. So the conclusion is that early return is useless (at least for

[Bug target/92566] rs6000_preferred_simd_mode isn't very good

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #47325|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/92566] rs6000_preferred_simd_mode isn't very good

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566 --- Comment #10 from Kewen Lin --- Yes, you are right, it's fine to drop it. Since the previous code will early return if it's under (!TARGET_ALTIVEC && !TARGET_VSX), I was thinking it may be good to put an early return there. I'm fine to remove

[Bug c++/92625] New: Internal compiler error accessing element in static constexpr char array in template class using alias

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92625 Bug ID: 92625 Summary: Internal compiler error accessing element in static constexpr char array in template class using alias Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status:

[Bug target/92611] auto vectorization failed for type promotation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92611 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > I think Richard laid ground for this to work on x86 (it needs AVX512?), AVX512 is not needed. > not sure what is needed in the backend here to make V4QI -> V4SI

[Bug target/92566] rs6000_preferred_simd_mode isn't very good

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- Oh, and I think you can drop the if (!TARGET_ALTIVEC && !TARGET_VSX) thing? The rest of the code should handle that fine?

[Bug c/66773] sign-compare warning for == and != are pretty useless

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66773 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- Hi Daniel, (In reply to Daniel Marjamäki from comment #9) > Problems; > > * Code that performs comparison properly gets a warning. You get a warning if you compare a signed thing to an unsigned

[Bug middle-end/92624] New: inconsistent folding of strcmp calls with unterminated arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92624 Bug ID: 92624 Summary: inconsistent folding of strcmp calls with unterminated arrays Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/92267] [9 Regression] crash with a cppunit test case (built by GCC 9) and cpptest (built with GCC 8)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92267 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/92402] parsing error in lambda trail return type with decltype, statement expressions and structured bindings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92402 Will Wray changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wjwray at gmail dot com --- Comment #1 from

[Bug libstdc++/92616] Inconsistency in time between system_clock::now() and time(nullptr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ but I think they prefer bugs to be reported to distros unless you're actually using the upstream kernel. So report it to Ubuntu (but mention it's also seen in Fedora).

[Bug rtl-optimization/92602] Failure in gcc.target/powerpc/bswap64-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to seurer from comment #4) > FYI, this also causes an issue when building spec2017 in case anyone else > runs into that. I'll have to change this part to use -fcommon. That was/is PR 92612.

[Bug rtl-optimization/92602] Failure in gcc.target/powerpc/bswap64-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92602 --- Comment #4 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- FYI, this also causes an issue when building spec2017 in case anyone else runs into that. I'll have to change this part to use -fcommon. /home/seurer/gcc/install/gcc-test/bin/gcc -m64 -O3

[Bug tree-optimization/92608] [9/10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in find_loop_guard)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92608 --- Comment #2 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: prathamesh3492 Date: Thu Nov 21 20:20:36 2019 New Revision: 278598 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278598=gcc=rev Log: Use safe_dyn_cast instead of dyn_cast in

[Bug libfortran/92569] [8/9/10 Regression] gfortran read with end directive does not trigger with -ffrontend-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Known to fail|

[Bug libfortran/92569] [8/9/10 Regression] gfortran read with end directive does not trigger with -ffrontend-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Something like the following fixes the testcase, but leads to regressions elsewhere in the testsuite (e.g. direct_io_{9,10}.f): Index: libgfortran/io/transfer.c

[Bug target/92566] rs6000_preferred_simd_mode isn't very good

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- I don't think you need lines 4909..4911. How can we test this? Is there good test coverage for it already?

[Bug testsuite/92619] [10 regression] gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c fails starting with r278547

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/92619] [10 regression] gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c fails starting with r278547

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619 --- Comment #2 from Iain Sandoe --- Author: iains Date: Thu Nov 21 19:56:34 2019 New Revision: 278594 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278594=gcc=rev Log: [testsuite] Fix bad dg-error syntax in gnu2x-attrs-1.c. 2019-11-21 Iain Sandoe

[Bug rtl-optimization/71785] Computed gotos are mostly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785 --- Comment #20 from Aleksey --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #19) > '-freorder-blocks' > Reorder basic blocks in the compiled function in order to reduce > number of taken branches and improve code locality. > >

[Bug libfortran/92569] [8/9/10 Regression] gfortran read with end directive does not trigger with -ffrontend-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |libfortran --- Comment #5

[Bug ada/92575] couple of suspicious assignments in expect.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92575 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug ada/92575] couple of suspicious assignments in expect.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92575 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug testsuite/92623] FAIL: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-17.c on ILP32: missing warning on line 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92623 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug testsuite/92623] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-17.c on ILP32: missing warning on line 8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92623 Bug ID: 92623 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-17.c on ILP32: missing warning on line 8 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/92622] FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-22.c on ILP32: missing warnings for VLA on lines 67 and 69

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic

[Bug testsuite/92622] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-22.c on ILP32: missing warnings for VLA on lines 67 and 69

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92622 Bug ID: 92622 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/Warray-bounds-22.c on ILP32: missing warnings for VLA on lines 67 and 69 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/92621] Segmentation fault with assumed rank allocatable intent(out) with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 --- Comment #1 from José Rui Faustino de Sousa --- Created attachment 47327 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47327=edit C code

[Bug fortran/92621] New: Segmentation fault with assumed rank allocatable intent(out) with bind(c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92621 Bug ID: 92621 Summary: Segmentation fault with assumed rank allocatable intent(out) with bind(c) Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/92620] Ignored -fno-builtin -fno-builtin-memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Why do you think this is a bug? > > From https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-9.2.0/gcc/Standards.html#Standards: > Most of the compiler support routines used by

[Bug tree-optimization/90836] Missing popcount pattern matching

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 90836, which changed state. Bug 90836 Summary: Missing popcount pattern matching https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90836 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/92620] Ignored -fno-builtin -fno-builtin-memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/92616] Inconsistency in time between system_clock::now() and time(nullptr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92616 --- Comment #5 from Anthony Williams --- Where can I file a bug in the vDSO?

[Bug c/92620] New: Ignored -fno-builtin -fno-builtin-memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92620 Bug ID: 92620 Summary: Ignored -fno-builtin -fno-builtin-memcpy Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug testsuite/92619] [10 regression] gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c fails starting with r278547

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619 --- Comment #1 from Iain Sandoe --- duh, it looks like I missed a "" in the dg-error .. will sort it out.

[Bug fortran/92569] [8/9/10 Regression] gfortran read with end directive does not trigger with -ffrontend-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug testsuite/92619] New: [10 regression] gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c fails starting with r278547

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92619 Bug ID: 92619 Summary: [10 regression] gcc.dg/gnu2x-attrs-1.c fails starting with r278547 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/92526] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:2274 since r278244

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92526 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/92526] [10 Regression] ICE in vect_enhance_data_refs_alignment, at tree-vect-data-refs.c:2274 since r278244

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92526 --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Thu Nov 21 17:45:36 2019 New Revision: 278592 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278592=gcc=rev Log: Reject versioning for alignment with different masks (PR 92526)

[Bug tree-optimization/92543] [10 regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-alias-check-1.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92543 --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Thu Nov 21 17:43:24 2019 New Revision: 278591 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278591=gcc=rev Log: Add more markup to vect-alias-check-{1,18}.c (PR 92543) In

[Bug tree-optimization/92543] [10 regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-alias-check-1.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92543 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/92595] [10 Regression] ICE in related_vector_mode, at stor-layout.c:534 since r278229

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92595 --- Comment #1 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Thu Nov 21 17:41:16 2019 New Revision: 278590 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278590=gcc=rev Log: Add missing VECTOR_MODE_P checks (PR 92595) This patch fixes

[Bug tree-optimization/92595] [10 Regression] ICE in related_vector_mode, at stor-layout.c:534 since r278229

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92595 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug rtl-optimization/71785] Computed gotos are mostly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785 --- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Aleksey from comment #16) > > > It would be helpful if you give the explanation how these options affect > > > "un-factoring". > > > > What options? -fno-reorder-blocks? Those doo the

[Bug tree-optimization/91355] [8/9/10 Regression] optimized code does not call destructor while unwinding after exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91355 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:21:46 2019 New Revision: 278587 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278587=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/91355 * tree-ssa-sink.c (select_best_block):

[Bug middle-end/90840] [8 Regression] ICE in simplify_subreg, at simplify-rtx.c:6441

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90840 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:20:47 2019 New Revision: 278586 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278586=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-11-20 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug target/90867] [8 Regression] Multiplication or typecast of integer and double always zero when...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90867 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:20:04 2019 New Revision: 278585 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278585=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-11-20 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug c/90898] [8 Regression] ICE in insert_clobber_before_stack_restore, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:2112

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90898 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:18:55 2019 New Revision: 278584 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278584=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-11-20 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug middle-end/91450] __builtin_mul_overflow(A,B,R) wrong code if product < 0, *R is unsigned, and !(A)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91450 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:18:17 2019 New Revision: 278583 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278583=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-11-19 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug middle-end/92384] [8 Regression] Empty class instances have different equal testing result among GCC versions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92384 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:17:20 2019 New Revision: 278582 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278582=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-11-08 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug rtl-optimization/71785] Computed gotos are mostly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785 --- Comment #18 from Aleksey --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #17) > First off internal documentation is not user documentation. > Second internal documentation is not always in sync with the code. In this > case it seems like it

[Bug preprocessor/92296] [8 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault #pragma push_macro("__LINE__")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92296 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:15:56 2019 New Revision: 278581 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278581=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-10-31 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug tree-optimization/85887] [8 Regression] Missing DW_TAG_lexical_block PC range

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85887 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:15:01 2019 New Revision: 278580 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278580=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-10-22 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug c++/92201] [9/10 Regression] ICE: ‘verify_gimple’ failed with -std=c++2a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92201 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:14:25 2019 New Revision: 278579 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278579=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-10-29 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug tree-optimization/92056] [10 Regression] ice in expr_object_size, at tree-object-si ze.c:675 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92056 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:13:41 2019 New Revision: 278578 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278578=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-10-17 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug c++/91974] function not sequenced before function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91974 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:12:57 2019 New Revision: 278577 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278577=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-10-04 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug tree-optimization/91665] [8 Regression] ICE in build_vector_from_val, at tree.c:1904

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91665 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:12:06 2019 New Revision: 278576 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278576=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-09-07 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug middle-end/91001] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2310

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91001 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:11:19 2019 New Revision: 278575 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278575=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-09-06 Jakub Jelinek *

[Bug middle-end/91105] internal compiler error: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91105 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:11:19 2019 New Revision: 278575 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278575=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-09-06 Jakub Jelinek *

[Bug target/91106] internal compiler error: output_operand: invalid use of register 'frame'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91106 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:11:19 2019 New Revision: 278575 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278575=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-09-06 Jakub Jelinek *

[Bug middle-end/91623] [8 Regression] -msse4.1 -O3 segfault in /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.3.0/include/smmintrin.h:270:10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91623 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:09:57 2019 New Revision: 278574 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278574=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-09-01 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug c/91401] schedule + dist_schedule clauses rejected on distribute parallel for

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91401 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Nov 21 17:08:49 2019 New Revision: 278573 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278573=gcc=rev Log: Backported from mainline 2019-08-09 Jakub Jelinek PR

[Bug tree-optimization/92618] [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary expression in reassoc since r273490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/92618] [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary expression in reassoc since r273490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- That optimization seems to ignore completely the involved types. Consider following testcase instead, where in foo the addition is performed originally in unsigned long long type and in baz in double type,

[Bug tree-optimization/92618] [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary expression in reassoc since r273490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/92596] [10 Regression] ICE in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2162 since r278406

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot

[Bug rtl-optimization/71785] Computed gotos are mostly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71785 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski --- First off internal documentation is not user documentation. Second internal documentation is not always in sync with the code. In this case it seems like it is not fully. Basically BB reordering does

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- In c++ (unlike C) return from a non void function is undefined even if the return value is not used. In c, only of the return value is used it would be undefined.

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Not you can get a runtime error if you use -fsanitizer=undefined.

[Bug tree-optimization/92618] [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary expression in reassoc since r273490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/92618] New: [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary expression in reassoc since r273490

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92618 Bug ID: 92618 Summary: [10 Regression] error: type mismatch in binary expression in reassoc since r273490 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/86504] vectorization failure for a nest loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 86504, which changed state. Bug 86504 Summary: vectorization failure for a nest loop https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504 What|Removed |Added

[Bug ipa/60243] IPA is slow on large cgraph tree

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60243 --- Comment #27 from Jan Hubicka --- profile_estimate issue is still here, inliner and early inliner issues seems solved. Seems that ipa_profile just orders the nodes for propagation in wrong way - we propagate from callers to callees while

[Bug tree-optimization/86504] vectorization failure for a nest loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504 --- Comment #11 from Joel Hutton --- Should be fixed on trunk by r277784

[Bug tree-optimization/86504] vectorization failure for a nest loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86504 --- Comment #10 from Joel Hutton --- Should be fixed on trunk

[Bug ipa/44563] GCC uses a lot of RAM when compiling a large numbers of functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44563 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|hubicka at gcc dot

[Bug c++/55135] Segfault of gcc on a big file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135 --- Comment #30 from Jan Hubicka --- Reconfirmed that we still take ages to build the testcase (early inliner is still running for me) The early inliner issue here is caused by tree-inline removing individual clones one by one. Each time a

[Bug c++/92450] [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'error_mark' in cp_parser_member_declaration, at cp/parser.c:25055

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92450 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/92450] [10 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'error_mark' in cp_parser_member_declaration, at cp/parser.c:25055

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92450 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Thu Nov 21 15:27:46 2019 New Revision: 278570 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278570=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/92450 - ICE with invalid nested name specifier. *

[Bug c++/92158] Missed -Wsign-conversion in C++ when -1 enum converted to unsigned int

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92158 --- Comment #10 from Jonny Grant --- C++ 'enum class' gives a nice error for conversion to unsigned. Example: enum class E { a = 1 } ; unsigned i = E::a; I've asked this before, will just write again so it is on a ticket. I understand C++

[Bug tree-optimization/92596] [10 Regression] ICE in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2162 since r278406

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu Nov 21 15:01:17 2019 New Revision: 278555 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278555=gcc=rev Log: 2019-11-21 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/92596 *

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Seweryn --- Obviously there is no return statement and warning was issued, however endless loop isn't the expected result, don't you agree? And falling-through to the next piece of code is even worse, coze we are

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/92566] rs6000_preferred_simd_mode isn't very good

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92566 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #47306|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Seweryn --- Similar problem occurs when -O2 or -O3 is used, there is also an endless loop, however different assembler code is generated. I can also provided appropriate .ii and .s files for O2 and O3 case.

[Bug tree-optimization/92596] [10 Regression] ICE in exact_div, at poly-int.h:2162 since r278406

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92596 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > The second testcase still ICEs though, so investigating that. Which is more fun. We have group_size == vf == 1 here but V2SI as vectype. t2.c:17:1: note:

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 --- Comment #2 from Piotr Seweryn --- Created attachment 47324 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47324=edit Assembler file

[Bug c++/92617] Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 --- Comment #1 from Piotr Seweryn --- Created attachment 47323 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47323=edit Pre-processed file

[Bug c++/92617] New: Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92617 Bug ID: 92617 Summary: Invalid loop optimization: no exit condition Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug inline-asm/92615] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in extract_insn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92615 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-* Target

  1   2   >