[Bug fortran/66575] Endless compilation on missing end interface

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66575 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c/91373] gcc6.2.0: ((U32)((U16 * U16)) >> 31) cannot always get correct result with gcc -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #8 from Brian T. Carcich --- Not exactly a page out of Dale Carnegie.

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #7 from Brian T. Carcich --- Oh dear.

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #5 from Brian T. Carcich --- S ... as does yours, probably --- Comment #6 from Brian T. Carcich --- S ... as does yours, possibly.

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #5 from Brian T. Carcich --- S ... as does yours, probably --- Comment #6 from Brian T. Carcich --- S ... as does yours, possibly.

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #4 from Brian T. Carcich --- PPPS I apologize; by way of ignorant excuse, my history with Fortran goes back way more than 29y.

[Bug fortran/89943] Submodule functions are not allowed to have C binding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89943 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||83113 --- Comment #3 from

[Bug c++/41423] missing warning for an uncallable function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41423 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- Would this go under a new flag or an existing one?

[Bug fortran/87797] Enhancement: Warning for potential name clash of variables/intrinsics...

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87797 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 02:37:25AM +, briantcarcich at gmail dot com wrote: > > The issue is that this *is* a bug in GFORTRAN. > I never claimed that it wasn't a bug. PS: The name of the compiler is

[Bug middle-end/90597] [9/10 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-vector_size.c (internal compiler error)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90597 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #4 from

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #2 from Brian T. Carcich --- Agreed that the options -finit-local-zero and -fno-automatic are extraneous; sorry, they were dragged into here from my Makefile because I need them for the larger project. Also, I know how to do a

[Bug c/91373] New: gcc6.2.0: ((U32)((U16 * U16)) >> 31) cannot always get correct result with gcc -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 Bug ID: 91373 Summary: gcc6.2.0: ((U32)((U16 * U16)) >> 31) cannot always get correct result with gcc -O2 Product: gcc Version: 6.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/91318] [C++][PATCH] warnings about unused internal macros with -Wunused-macros and #pragma GCC optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91318 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Henryk Dabrowski --- Sent: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00325.html

[Bug target/91349] [9 regression] powerpc*-*-freebsd* defines _GNU_SOURCE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91349 --- Comment #9 from Alan Modra --- > I have no idea which parts are GNU-specific, and which parts power actually > needs. Yeah, I was being cheeky in suggesting you provide the effort needed. > I can just see that your change to include

[Bug c++/91304] maybe_unused attribute ignored on variable declared in if declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91304 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.0, 9.1.0 --- Comment #1 from Martin

[Bug middle-end/50476] Warn of pointer set to object whose lifetime is limited

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Aug 6 00:30:02 2019 New Revision: 274135 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274135=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/50476 - Warn of pointer set to object whose lifetime is limited

[Bug middle-end/50476] Warn of pointer set to object whose lifetime is limited

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/60517] warning/error for taking address of member of a temporary object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517 --- Comment #26 from Martin Sebor --- Author: msebor Date: Tue Aug 6 00:08:45 2019 New Revision: 274130 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274130=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/60517 - warning/error for taking address of member of a temporary object

[Bug c/50476] Warn of pointer set to object whose lifetime is limited

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50476 Bug 50476 depends on bug 60517, which changed state. Bug 60517 Summary: warning/error for taking address of member of a temporary object https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/45821] no warning when returning a local variable address within a statement expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45821 Bug 45821 depends on bug 60517, which changed state. Bug 60517 Summary: warning/error for taking address of member of a temporary object https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/51270] missed warning about returning reference to temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51270 Bug 51270 depends on bug 60517, which changed state. Bug 60517 Summary: warning/error for taking address of member of a temporary object https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/60517] warning/error for taking address of member of a temporary object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60517 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/89180] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wunused warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180 Bug 89180 depends on bug 91335, which changed state. Bug 91335 Summary: False positive "unused variable" warning with variable initialized in 'if' condition https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91335 What|Removed

[Bug c++/91335] False positive "unused variable" warning with variable initialized in 'if' condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91335 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/91109] [10 regression][arm] gcc.c-torture/execute/20040709-1.c fails since r273135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91109 --- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger --- Patch is posted here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-08/msg00305.html

[Bug middle-end/91358] Wrong code with dynamic allocation and optional like class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/91368] Implement P1301R4: [[nodiscard("with reason")]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368 JeanHeyd Meneide changed: What|Removed |Added CC||phdofthehouse at gmail dot com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/91240] [8/9/10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 due to unroll and jam pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91240 --- Comment #3 from Michael Matz --- Also fixed by the patch at PR90796.

[Bug fortran/91372] Error: Unclassifiable statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/90796] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC: O2 vs O3 output differs on simple test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 --- Comment #7 from Michael Matz --- Created attachment 46675 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46675=edit potential patch Actually I was barking up the wrong tree. It's not as easy as the CFG manipulation for loop fusion

[Bug c++/88095] class nontype template parameter UDL string literals doesn't accepts deduction placeholder

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88095 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Mon Aug 5 19:34:23 2019 New Revision: 274123 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274123=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/88095, CTAD for literal operator templates per P0732 This patch fixes PR

[Bug fortran/91372] Error: Unclassifiable statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Aug 5 19:24:31 2019 New Revision: 274122 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274122=gcc=rev Log: 2019-08-05 Steven g. Kargl PR fortran/91372 * decl.c

[Bug fortran/91372] Error: Unclassifiable statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug fortran/91372] Error: Unclassifiable statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372 --- Comment #2 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 06:44:31PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > The code is invalid. > > Free-form source code requires whitespace after "DATA". > So my reading to R837 data-stmt is DATA

[Bug c++/91338] Implement P1161R3: Deprecate a[b,c]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91338 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91338] Implement P1161R3: Deprecate a[b,c]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91338 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Mon Aug 5 19:01:15 2019 New Revision: 274121 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274121=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/91338 - Implement P1161R3: Deprecate a[b,c]. * c-opts.c

[Bug fortran/90985] Wrong error message with variables named "DATA*"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90985 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||91372 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- This

[Bug c++/91361] Implement P1152R4: Deprecating some uses of volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91361 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Actually, no reason not to link R4: .

[Bug c/78155] missing warning on invalid isalpha et al.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78155 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||87403 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager

[Bug fortran/91372] [10 Regression] Error: Unclassifiable statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/91372] New: [10 Regression] Error: Unclassifiable statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91372 Bug ID: 91372 Summary: [10 Regression] Error: Unclassifiable statement Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/91359] logical function X returns .TRUE. - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug target/88918] [meta-bug] x86 intrinsic issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918 Bug 88918 depends on bug 91341, which changed state. Bug 91341 Summary: Missing AVX Intrinsics: load/store u2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91341 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/91341] Missing AVX Intrinsics: load/store u2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91341 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/80619] bad fix-it hint for GCC %lu directive with int argument: %wu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80619 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor

[Bug target/83250] _mm256_zextsi128_si256 missing for AVX2 zero extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83250 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/91362] program compiled with O3 optimization give different output than without optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91362 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/58684] powerpc uses only unordered floating-point compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58684 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- *** Bug 91331 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/91331] new test case gcc.dg/torture/pr91323.c from r274005 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91331 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/83250] _mm256_zextsi128_si256 missing for AVX2 zero extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83250 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a-yee at u dot northwestern.edu --- Comment

[Bug target/88918] [meta-bug] x86 intrinsic issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88918 Bug 88918 depends on bug 91340, which changed state. Bug 91340 Summary: Missing AVX and AVX512 Intrinsics: Zero-Extension https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91340 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/91340] Missing AVX and AVX512 Intrinsics: Zero-Extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91340 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/91371] New: std::bind and bind_front don't work with function with call convention

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371 Bug ID: 91371 Summary: std::bind and bind_front don't work with function with call convention Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/88337] Implement P1002R1, P1327R1, P1330R0, C++20 relaxations of constexpr restrictions.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88337 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91368] Implement P1301R4: [[nodiscard("with reason")]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c/78155] missing warning on invalid isalpha et al.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78155 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- I don't really see what existing warning this might fall under, except perhaps -Wchar-subscripts because isalpha and friend use the argument as an index into an array of 257 characters, but that seems like a

[Bug c++/91370] Implement P1041R4 and P1139R2: Stronger Unicode requirements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91370 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91370] New: Implement P1041R4 and P1139R2: Stronger Unicode requirements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91370 Bug ID: 91370 Summary: Implement P1041R4 and P1139R2: Stronger Unicode requirements Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/91369] New: Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369 Bug ID: 91369 Summary: Implement P0784R7: constexpr new Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/91369] Implement P0784R7: constexpr new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91369 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91368] New: Implement P1301R4: [[nodiscard("with reason")]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368 Bug ID: 91368 Summary: Implement P1301R4: [[nodiscard("with reason")]] Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/91368] Implement P1301R4: [[nodiscard("with reason")]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91368 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91367] Implement P1099R5: using enum

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91367 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91367] New: Implement P1099R5: using enum

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91367 Bug ID: 91367 Summary: Implement P1099R5: using enum Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/91366] Implement P1816R0: Class template argument deduction for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91366 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91366] New: Implement P1816R0: Class template argument deduction for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91366 Bug ID: 91366 Summary: Implement P1816R0: Class template argument deduction for aggregates Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/91362] program compiled with O3 optimization give different output than without optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91362 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Looks like an aliasing violation.

[Bug c++/91364] Implement P0388R4: Permit conversions to arrays of unknown bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91365] Implement P1814R0: Class template argument deduction for alias templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91365 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91365] New: Implement P1814R0: Class template argument deduction for alias templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91365 Bug ID: 91365 Summary: Implement P1814R0: Class template argument deduction for alias templates Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/91364] New: Implement P0388R4: Permit conversions to arrays of unknown bound

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91364 Bug ID: 91364 Summary: Implement P0388R4: Permit conversions to arrays of unknown bound Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/91356] Poor optimization of calls involving std::unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The ABI dictates the calling conventions and there's certainly nothing that libstdc++ can do about it. In any case, how common is it to have a pointless non-inline baz function which does nothing but

[Bug c++/91363] Implement P0960R3: Parenthesized initialization of aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91363] New: Implement P0960R3: Parenthesized initialization of aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91363 Bug ID: 91363 Summary: Implement P0960R3: Parenthesized initialization of aggregates Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/91362] New: program compiled with O3 optimization give different output than without optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91362 Bug ID: 91362 Summary: program compiled with O3 optimization give different output than without optimization Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/91361] Implement P1152R4: Deprecating some uses of volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91361 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91361] New: Implement P1152R4: Deprecating some uses of volatile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91361 Bug ID: 91361 Summary: Implement P1152R4: Deprecating some uses of volatile Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug libstdc++/91357] _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS rejects possibly-valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91357 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- More specifically: v.operator[](1); /* maybe okay -- forms a pointer one past end */ Not OK. **Dereferences** a past-the end iterator. That's UB. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go.

[Bug libstdc++/91357] _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS rejects possibly-valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91357 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91360] Implement P1143R2: constinit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91360 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91360] New: Implement P1143R2: constinit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91360 Bug ID: 91360 Summary: Implement P1143R2: constinit Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/91359] New: GFORTRAN [NNNNN RETURN] of .FALSE. logical function X returns .TRUE. after [if (.not.X) goto NNNNN] - Warning: spaghetti code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 Bug ID: 91359 Summary: GFORTRAN [N RETURN] of .FALSE. logical function X returns .TRUE. after [if (.not.X) goto N] - Warning: spaghetti code Product: gcc

[Bug middle-end/91358] New: Wrong code with dynamic allocation and optional like class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358 Bug ID: 91358 Summary: Wrong code with dynamic allocation and optional like class Product: gcc Version: 9.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-code

[Bug c/80619] bad fix-it hint for GCC %lu directive with int argument: %wu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80619 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c/91312] -Wconversion warning with += operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312 --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse --- We know that the warning is not so useful as is, that's why it isn't part of Wall or Wextra, see the other bugs on the topic. It needs people with time and motivation to work on it.

[Bug target/91349] [9 regression] powerpc*-*-freebsd* defines _GNU_SOURCE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91349 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (assuming something like TARGET_REALLY_GNU existed)

[Bug target/91349] [9 regression] powerpc*-*-freebsd* defines _GNU_SOURCE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91349 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- I have no idea which parts are GNU-specific, and which parts power actually needs. I can just see that your change to include gnu-user.h on non-GNU targets seems like a design smell, and the requirement to

[Bug sanitizer/91311] __attribute__ ((aligned (128))) results in stack-use-after-scope and stack-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91311 Konstantin Kharlamov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/88451] No rounding in fixed-point arithmetic (Decimal to fixed-point conversion, multiplication)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88451 --- Comment #5 from Mantas Mikaitis --- Hello, I am raising this again. Has anyone had a change to confirm my testcases fail in the latest version of the compiler? Kind regards, Mantas Mikaitis

[Bug libstdc++/91357] New: _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS rejects possibly-valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91357 Bug ID: 91357 Summary: _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS rejects possibly-valid code Product: gcc Version: 9.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c/91312] -Wconversion warning with += operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91312 --- Comment #7 from Kostas Sotiropoulos --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > (In reply to Kostas Sotiropoulos from comment #4) > > Any comments on my questions? > > Yes go read the c standard about prompting to int here. I had

[Bug c++/82380] [concepts] Error when using requires constraint with attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82380 Mateusz Pusz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mateusz.pusz at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/91353] Implement P1331R2: Permitting trivial default initialization in constexpr contexts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, I won't have time soon to work on this further, so if anyone wants to take it over, reusing or not reusing the above patch, feel free.

[Bug libstdc++/91356] New: Poor optimization of calls involving std::unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 Bug ID: 91356 Summary: Poor optimization of calls involving std::unique_ptr Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/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 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/91240] [8/9/10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 due to unroll and jam pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91240 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/91353] Implement P1331R2: Permitting trivial default initialization in constexpr contexts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91353 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/91154] [10 Regression] 456.hmmer regression on Haswell caused by r272922

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91154 --- Comment #18 from Bill Schmidt --- Richi corrected me -- this is not vectorization, but use of SSE on lane zero to do scalar computation.

  1   2   >