[Bug go/93866] [debug] Methods with pointer receiver incorrectly named

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93866 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/93900] Patches to fix build of gcc-10-10-20200222 for GNU/Hurd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93900 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a4dbb9b25a60143c699de55cd6226cebeb3b3c3e commit r10-6826-ga4dbb9b25a60143c699de55cd6226cebeb3b3c3e Author: Ian Lance Taylor

[Bug c/93911] Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Why is this a bug report not an email to the gcc-help list?

[Bug c/93857] missing test for diagnostic: using integer constants in boolean context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93857 --- Comment #4 from Roland Illig --- In the case of "boolean context", there are a few other diagnostics that also contain these exact words. Therefore the tests should at least have enough words to distinguish these diagnostics from the others.

[Bug c++/93862] [10 Regression] ICE on static_cast of rvalue-reference-to-array of unknown bound [P0338] to its known static bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93862 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- I have a patch but both (2) and (3) are invalid, see . (icc also rejects it.)

[Bug target/93913] New: [10 regression] r10-6762 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-st-*.c test cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93913 Bug ID: 93913 Summary: [10 regression] r10-6762 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-st-*.c test cases Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- You are still converting an unaligned pointer to an aligned pointer, and the address of a struct is the same as the address if its first member (with suitable conversion).

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson --- (In reply to stephane.goujet from comment #0) > test2.c: In function 'main': > test2.c:9:5: warning: converting a packed 'struct S' pointer (alignment 1) > to a 'int' pointer (alignment 4) may result in

[Bug c/93911] Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 --- Comment #2 from Tomasz Kłoczko --- Because I don't want to be listen by all people who needs help and I want to talk with those who knows how LTO woorks? And as well I don't subscribe to yet-amnother-list to ask one question some exact

[Bug c++/88690] [8 Regression] c++17 internal compiler error: in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5031

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88690 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/80198] [8/9/10 Regression] does not vectorize generic inplace integer operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198 --- Comment #17 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I've got something limping along. It seems to allow us to capture the redundancy when a == b. I'm poking at it some more to see how often it applies across a wider codebase.

[Bug c++/93804] exempt extern "C" headers from -Wredundant-tags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93804 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b73547e40e0b2b6621feec59c9cc65312eddbc6d commit r10-6824-gb73547e40e0b2b6621feec59c9cc65312eddbc6d Author: Martin Sebor Date: Mon

[Bug c++/93905] Cannot use Derived type of Base containing both enum and protected destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905 --- Comment #4 from Karol Koczwara --- gcc -version COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/opt/rh/devtoolset-8/root/usr/libexec/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/8/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-redhat-linux Configured with: ../configure --enable-bootstrap

[Bug c++/92852] [8/9/10 Regression] location references block not in block tree

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92852 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:90e1d25b60630d45fe1092abeb8f4d7b6c5e2da2 commit r8-10051-g90e1d25b60630d45fe1092abeb8f4d7b6c5e2da2 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug lto/93911] Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- You don't need to subscribe to the list to post. This doesn't seem like a bug report.

[Bug go/93900] Patches to fix build of gcc-10-10-20200222 for GNU/Hurd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93900 --- Comment #4 from Svante Signell --- Sorry, but there were two patches attached: one for libgo/go/internal/syscall/unix/nonblocking.go and one for libgo/go/internal/poll/fcntl_syscall.go >From the commit

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 --- Comment #6 from stephane.goujet at wanadoo dot fr --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #5) > The packed attribute forces the alignment to 1, so there is no requirement > for its address to be aligned for its type. So one could say

[Bug c++/93883] missing test for diagnostic: using-declaration may not name enumerator %<%E::%D%>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93883 --- Comment #4 from Roland Illig --- Just to clear up a potential misunderstanding. I do not want you to update thousands of diagnostics. That would be a waste of time. I only reported bugs for those diagnostics that I as the German translator

[Bug c++/87513] [8 Regression] ICE in write_expression, at cp/mangle.c:3050

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87513 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/93912] New: typo: probablity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93912 Bug ID: 93912 Summary: typo: probablity Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other Assignee:

[Bug c++/39906] Accepted invalid member template specialization in derived class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39906 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2009-04-26 16:52:02 |2020-2-24 CC|

[Bug c++/93905] Cannot use Derived type of Base containing both enum and protected destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Still missing the required information, and I still can't reproduce this with gcc version 8.3.1 20200224.

[Bug c++/93907] internal compiler error: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.c:137

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93907 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 47899 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47899=edit reproducer for ICE

[Bug c++/93905] [8 Regression] Cannot use Derived type of Base containing both enum and protected destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/93905] [8 Regression] Cannot use Derived type of Base containing both enum and protected destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93905 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/88183] [8 Regression] Fold expression with operator .* inside an polymorphic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88183 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/93857] missing test for diagnostic: using integer constants in boolean context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93857 --- Comment #3 from Roland Illig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > testsuite/c-c++-common/Wint-in-bool-context.c Thanks for pointing me to the test. My reasoning from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93883#c4 applies

[Bug c/93859] missing test for diagnostic: the omitted middle operand will always be true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93859 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Another strategy would be make -jN check and grep the *.log files for the diagnostics.

[Bug tree-optimization/92152] [10 Regression] Wrong code (Resurrection of PR53663)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92152 --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 47901 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47901=edit another related testcase > But that means we now miscompile the later two tests. Good point, those are my testcases

[Bug lto/93911] Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/93914] New: invalid definition of explicit specialization accepted with just a warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93914 Bug ID: 93914 Summary: invalid definition of explicit specialization accepted with just a warning Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 --- Comment #3 from stephane.goujet at wanadoo dot fr --- (In reply to Mikael Pettersson from comment #2) > IMO the warning is correct. Simply _creating_ a misaligned pointer is > undefined behaviour, and there are machines where it cannot be

[Bug rtl-optimization/93908] [8/9/10 Regression] git miscompilation on s390x-linux with -O2 -march=zEC12 -mtune=z13 starting with r8-1288

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93908 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 47900 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47900=edit gcc10-pr93908.patch Untested fix.

[Bug c/93879] typo: frequency quality

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93879 --- Comment #2 from Roland Illig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > The word quality looks correct, that is what is expected (profile quality is > something like guessed_local, guessed, afdo, precise etc.), perhaps it > should be

[Bug c++/93915] New: Suboptimal error message when there is no usable postfix operator-- overload due to unsatisfied constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93915 Bug ID: 93915 Summary: Suboptimal error message when there is no usable postfix operator-- overload due to unsatisfied constraints Product: gcc Version: 10.0

[Bug c++/89766] [8 Regression] ICE: canonical types differ for identical types, -std=c++17

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89766 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- I can confirm that, it got fixed with r8-9524-g20792b17f0e4672cdffd06209ddd330cd72d84a4

[Bug lto/93911] Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/93859] missing test for diagnostic: the omitted middle operand will always be true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93859 --- Comment #2 from Roland Illig --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > git blame for the change which added the diagnostics and git log for that > change should usually help to identify the test. My strategy was simpler than "git

[Bug c/93859] missing test for diagnostic: the omitted middle operand will always be true

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93859 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic CC|

[Bug c++/93915] Suboptimal error message when there is no usable postfix operator-- overload due to unsatisfied constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93915 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I thought I had saw another bug asking a similar thing but without concepts being involved.

[Bug c/93911] New: Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 Bug ID: 93911 Summary: Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/93907] internal compiler error: in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.c:137

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93907 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-reduction

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 --- Comment #5 from Andreas Schwab --- The packed attribute forces the alignment to 1, so there is no requirement for its address to be aligned for its type.

[Bug lto/93911] Need expertise about how to solve some LTO related warnings in glib API code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93911 --- Comment #4 from Tomasz Kłoczko --- In this actual case it is flood of such warnings when LTO is used. Looks like glib developers are trying to tell that this those warnings should be calmed down. I know that LTO is pushing a lot of inlining

[Bug c++/93906] Add front end support for std::conditional::type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93906 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||compile-time-hog

[Bug c/93910] -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/93910] New: -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93910 Bug ID: 93910 Summary: -Waddress-of-packed-member triggered without actual access to a member or the address of a member Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug go/93900] Patches to fix build of gcc-10-10-20200222 for GNU/Hurd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93900 --- Comment #5 from Ian Lance Taylor --- Sorry, I did miss one. Using the bug report mechanism for sending patches is not very convenient. Are you very attached to it? Would you consider following the process outlined at

[Bug libstdc++/93872] [10 Regression] std::move(first, last, out) with a move-only value type fails to compile with -std=c++2a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93872 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- We have: template struct __copy_move<_IsMove, true, random_access_iterator_tag> { template _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR static _Tp* __copy_m(const _Tp* __first, const _Tp*

[Bug c++/93915] Suboptimal error message when there is no usable postfix operator-- overload due to unsatisfied constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93915 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #2 from Andrew

[Bug c/82283] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283 --- Comment #8 from Yann Droneaud --- See also this stack overflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49081541/compound-literal-and-designated-initializer-warning-from-gcc-but-not-clang

[Bug target/93877] [9/10 Regression] [SH] webkit2gtk fails to build with "internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2211"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877 --- Comment #4 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Passing -fno-move-loop-invariants to the command line fixes the problem for me.

[Bug c/84685] Designated initializers warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84685 Yann Droneaud changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yann at droneaud dot fr --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/93824] bogus -Wredundant-tags on a first declaration in use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93824 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|NEW

[Bug c++/93804] exempt extern "C" headers from -Wredundant-tags

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93804 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/90690] Undocumented -Werror-implicit-function-declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90690 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/93883] missing test for diagnostic: using-declaration may not name enumerator %<%E::%D%>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93883 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Sat, 22 Feb 2020, roland.illig at gmx dot de wrote: > The diagnostics in the test should be as close to the diagnostics in the main > code, in order to make it easy to find them. I

[Bug libfortran/93871] COTAN is slow for complex types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871 --- Comment #20 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- Note that for tiny arguments, tan should raise the underflow exception, whereas cot should not raise underflow, but maybe you're not concerned about exceptions raised.

[Bug c++/93916] Implicit copy/assignment alters padding bits of storage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- std::memset(storage.bytes, 0, sizeof(storage.bytes)); From* p = new (storage.bytes) From(from); The memset here is considered as Dead code.

[Bug target/93913] [10 regression] r10-6762 breaks gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-st-*.c test cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93913 --- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner --- Looks like more fragile test cases. I'll have a look.

[Bug c++/92003] [8/9 Regression] constexpr-ness of char const* doesn't propagate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92003 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e85b76b48ae55377042c859be1f4c2ac49cba26 commit r8-10053-g6e85b76b48ae55377042c859be1f4c2ac49cba26 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/90951] [8/9 Regression] error initializing a constexpr array of a struct with const member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90951 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:300d219af336436fbb58043db193f54d2a1b4b49 commit r8-10054-g300d219af336436fbb58043db193f54d2a1b4b49 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug target/87560] ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:3892

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87560 --- Comment #2 from Bill Schmidt --- Hm, I can't reproduce this with current trunk. Does it still occur for you, Martin?

[Bug c++/93916] Implicit copy/assignment alters padding bits of storage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916 --- Comment #1 from andysem at mail dot ru --- Created attachment 47902 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47902=edit A test case that demonstrates the problem

[Bug analyzer/93032] analyzer fails to detect FILE * leak in zlib/contrib/minizip/mztools.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93032 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3d788a2cd35c734a683444c976abe14afc5c1c1 commit r10-6828-gb3d788a2cd35c734a683444c976abe14afc5c1c1 Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug middle-end/93806] Wrong optimization: instability of floating-point results with -funsafe-math-optimizations leads to nonsense

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93806 --- Comment #26 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I wouldn't be surprised if such a test could be constructed in the absence of -funsafe-math-optimizations, that does a single conversion of an out-of-range integer to a floating-point

[Bug c/82283] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283 --- Comment #7 from Yann Droneaud --- See also bug #84685 which is a very likely duplicate of this one.

[Bug analyzer/93899] ICE in make_region_for_type, at analyzer/region-model.cc:6094

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93899 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/93140] [8/9 Regression] Segfault in cc1plus on incorrect decltype among function args

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93140 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:907401f2f910847b4581daf44d02e2cf9bfad220 commit r8-10052-g907401f2f910847b4581daf44d02e2cf9bfad220 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug tree-optimization/93767] [8/9 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r8-6064

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93767 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9be6e10c96b75307878472567cb0712812a8ab7 commit r9-8272-gf9be6e10c96b75307878472567cb0712812a8ab7 Author: Richard

[Bug c/82283] Wrong warning with -Wmissing-field-initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82283 --- Comment #6 from Yann Droneaud --- Found this one on stack overflow[1], and I find it a bit embarrassing: struct { struct { int a; int b; } c[1]; } d = { .c[0].a = 1, .c[0].b = 1, };

[Bug analyzer/93388] ensure -fanalyzer works with our C code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93388 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a25f345d1fbe2de8c12cae84b0c7d2a76c0b78e commit r10-6827-g3a25f345d1fbe2de8c12cae84b0c7d2a76c0b78e Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug analyzer/93899] ICE in make_region_for_type, at analyzer/region-model.cc:6094

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93899 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a25f345d1fbe2de8c12cae84b0c7d2a76c0b78e commit r10-6827-g3a25f345d1fbe2de8c12cae84b0c7d2a76c0b78e Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug analyzer/93778] ICE in get_region, at analyzer/region-model.h:1732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93778 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3a25f345d1fbe2de8c12cae84b0c7d2a76c0b78e commit r10-6827-g3a25f345d1fbe2de8c12cae84b0c7d2a76c0b78e Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/93917] New: VRP forgets range of value read from memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93917 Bug ID: 93917 Summary: VRP forgets range of value read from memory Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/80198] [8/9/10 Regression] does not vectorize generic inplace integer operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80198 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.4 |11.0 --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A.

[Bug c++/93916] New: Implicit copy/assignment alters padding bits of storage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93916 Bug ID: 93916 Summary: Implicit copy/assignment alters padding bits of storage Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/93877] [9/10 Regression] [SH] webkit2gtk fails to build with "internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2211"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877 --- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Hmm, there is one other source code file within webkit2gtk where -fno-move-loop-invariants does not help. I can only get that particular source file to be compiled if I disable all optimizations.

[Bug tree-optimization/80635] [8/9/10 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #42

[Bug middle-end/61577] [4.9.0 Regression] can't compile on hp-ux v3 ia64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61577 --- Comment #202 from Peter Bisroev --- (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #201) > On 2020-02-22 4:33 p.m., peter.bisroev at groundlabs dot com wrote: > > They both seem to be ELF32 > Maybe run failing program under gdb to find faulting

[Bug libfortran/93871] COTAN is slow for complex types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871 --- Comment #21 from Thomas Henlich --- One should also ask: What is the least surprising way to implement the cotangent function? If someone uses a (non-standard) function bearing a name similar to "tangent", they probably expect a function

[Bug fortran/47485] gfortran -M output is incorrect when -MT option is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47485 Thomas Henlich changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug fortran/93918] New: Segfault with -Ofast when calling a routine with an array argument array(:)%component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93918 Bug ID: 93918 Summary: Segfault with -Ofast when calling a routine with an array argument array(:)%component Product: gcc Version: 9.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/93871] COTAN is slow for complex types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871 Thomas Henlich changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug fortran/47485] gfortran -M output is incorrect when -MT option is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47485 Thomas Henlich changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|minor |normal

[Bug translation/93864] typo: paramter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93864 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/93879] typo: frequency quality

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93879 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug go/93900] New: Patches to fix build of gcc-10-10-20200222 for GNU/Hurd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93900 Bug ID: 93900 Summary: Patches to fix build of gcc-10-10-20200222 for GNU/Hurd Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/86521] [8 Regression] GCC 8 selects incorrect overload of ref-qualified conversion operator template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86521 Rémi Verschelde changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rverschelde at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/93897] Poor trivial structure initialization code with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93897 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Known

[Bug c++/93892] Aggregate initialisation of std::array takes forever to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93892 --- Comment #5 from zoid at riseup dot net --- Yes, indeed. I just run it on a different, much newer system, and I get "only" 4 seconds for 100,000, 5 minutes for 500,000 and 15 minutes for 1,000,000.

[Bug c++/93901] New: noexcept specifier on ctor does not work with constexpr variable or expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901 Bug ID: 93901 Summary: noexcept specifier on ctor does not work with constexpr variable or expression Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/93891] CSE where clobber writes the same value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93891 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/93895] [10 Regression] ICE (segmentation fault) in use of __is_constructible intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93895 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code

[Bug c++/93901] [10 Regression] noexcept specifier on ctor does not work with constexpr variable or expression since r10-4394

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93901 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/93892] Aggregate initialisation of std::array takes forever to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93892 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to zoid from comment #0) > Note: There are similar bug reports of very old versions of gcc. This might > be a regression. There are lots of similar reports for current versions too.

[Bug libfortran/93871] COTAN is slow for complex types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93871 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener --- Given there's no cotan or ccotan in libm indeed the solution looks like somehow exploiting sincos. Not sure how exactly that can be done.

[Bug libstdc++/93872] [10 Regression] std::move(first, last, out) with a move-only value type fails to compile with -std=c++2a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93872 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug target/93877] [9/10 Regression] [SH] webkit2gtk fails to build with "internal compiler error: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2211"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93877 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target

  1   2   >