[Bug c++/92652] New: function call to lambda expression that return true does not satisfy the constraint in requires-clause

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92652 Bug ID: 92652 Summary: function call to lambda expression that return true does not satisfy the constraint in requires-clause Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status:

[Bug tree-optimization/92649] dead store elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649 prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||prathamesh3492 at gcc

[Bug target/92646] Compilation fails on armv7l with sys/cdefs.h: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92646 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/92651] New: [10 Regression] Unnecessary stv transform in some x86 backend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92651 Bug ID: 92651 Summary: [10 Regression] Unnecessary stv transform in some x86 backend Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/92650] internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650 --- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro --- x86-64 gcc (trunk) - cached #1 with x86-64 gcc (trunk) In file included from /opt/compiler-explorer/libs/rangesv3/trunk/include/range/v3/action/action.hpp:19, from

[Bug c++/92650] New: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92650 Bug ID: 92650 Summary: internal compiler error: canonical types differ for identical types Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/92649] New: dead store elimination

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92649 Bug ID: 92649 Summary: dead store elimination Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug libfortran/92100] Formatted stream IO irreproducible read with binary data in file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100 --- Comment #10 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Mon Nov 25 02:24:55 2019 New Revision: 278664 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278664=gcc=rev Log: 2019-11-24 Jerry DeLisle PR fortran/92100

[Bug c++/92648] New: Handling of unknown attributes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92648 Bug ID: 92648 Summary: Handling of unknown attributes Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/92499] nios2 backend needs to consider allocated object size, not C object size for gprel optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499 --- Comment #8 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 47348 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47348=edit mips output for improved test case, -O2

[Bug target/92499] nios2 backend needs to consider allocated object size, not C object size for gprel optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499 --- Comment #7 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 47347 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47347=edit nios2 output for improved test case, -O2 -mgpopt=global

[Bug target/92499] nios2 backend needs to consider allocated object size, not C object size for gprel optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499 --- Comment #6 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 47346 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47346=edit improved test case with global/external cases as well as local

[Bug target/92499] nios2 backend needs to consider allocated object size, not C object size for gprel optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92499 --- Comment #5 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- Richard Sandiford complained that my patch to not put objects containing flexible arrays in small data was an ABI change for references across compilation units, so I've been taking another look

[Bug libfortran/92100] Formatted stream IO irreproducible read with binary data in file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92100 --- Comment #9 from Jerry DeLisle --- Author: jvdelisle Date: Sun Nov 24 22:14:59 2019 New Revision: 278660 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278660=gcc=rev Log: 2019-11-24 Jerry DeLisle PR fortran/92100 io/transfer.c

[Bug bootstrap/92445] gcc bootstrap fails on Darwin 19.0.0 in stage 1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92445 --- Comment #1 from Jürgen Reuter --- Did anybody look into this one here? At the moment, I cannot build gcc on MACOSX Catalina.

[Bug fortran/92586] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:13479 with nested allocatable derived types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92586 --- Comment #2 from epagone --- I managed to produce a test case that does not require any external library (much easier to test). Please find it attached in my previous comment. I was able then to test it easily with all the versions of

[Bug fortran/92586] ICE in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.c:13479 with nested allocatable derived types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92586 epagone changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #47303|0 |1 is obsolete|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92569 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.0|8.4 Summary|[8/9/10

[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 #10 from Thomas Koenig --- Author: tkoenig Date: Sun Nov 24 19:16:23 2019 New Revision: 278659 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278659=gcc=rev Log: Fix EOF handling for arrays. 2019-11-23 Thomas Koenig Harald Anlauf

[Bug tree-optimization/92229] Optimization makes it impossible to read overflow flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92229 Ariel Torti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/92643] ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90 failure on i586-*-freebsd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 06:07:20PM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug fortran/92643] ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90 failure on i586-*-freebsd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/92644] [9/10 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- For pointers, it boils down whether say void * foo (void *p) { return p ? p : (void *) 1; } optimization into MAX_EXPR <1B, p> is valid or not. The original code doesn't involve any non-equality

[Bug fortran/91800] ICE in gfc_code2string(): Bad code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91800 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/91783] [10 Regression] ICE in gfc_dep_resolver, at fortran/dependency.c:2111

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91783 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/92643] ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90 failure on i586-*-freebsd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 03:59:41AM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 > > --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > % gdb831 ./z > (gdb) run >

[Bug tree-optimization/92644] [9/10 Regression] ICE in wide_int_to_tree_1, at tree.c:1530

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92644 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug modula2/92647] New: Internal enum may conflict with the time() function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92647 Bug ID: 92647 Summary: Internal enum may conflict with the time() function Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/42118] Slow forall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42118 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/33097] Function decl trees without proper argument list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33097 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #22 from Thomas

[Bug fortran/24878] subroutine getting called illegally as a function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24878 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2018-01-05 00:00:00 |2019-11-24 --- Comment #6 from Thomas

[Bug target/92646] New: Compilation fails on armv7l with sys/cdefs.h: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92646 Bug ID: 92646 Summary: Compilation fails on armv7l with sys/cdefs.h: No such file or directory Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/92645] Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when compiled with GCC compared to Clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 47343 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47343=edit GCC 10 output

[Bug tree-optimization/92645] Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when compiled with GCC compared to Clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645 --- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 47341 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47341=edit clang output with -O2 -mavx2 -mf16c -mfma

[Bug tree-optimization/92645] Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when compiled with GCC compared to Clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 47342 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47342=edit GCC source

[Bug tree-optimization/92645] Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when compiled with GCC compared to Clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645 --- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 47340 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47340=edit Clang source

[Bug tree-optimization/92645] New: Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when compiled with GCC compared to Clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92645 Bug ID: 92645 Summary: Hand written vector code is 450 times slower when compiled with GCC compared to Clang Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/92643] ISO_Fortran_binding_15.f90 failure on i586-*-freebsd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92643 --- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab --- It also fails on aarch64-*-linux, both ILP32 and LP64.