[Bug c++/96162] New: [11 Regression] ICE in discriminator_for_local_entity, at cp/mangle.c:1910

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96162 Bug ID: 96162 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in discriminator_for_local_entity, at cp/mangle.c:1910 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug bootstrap/96160] Building gcc with multiple make jobs fails with: gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96160 --- Comment #4 from plevine457 at gmail dot com --- The offending command is > /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.1.0-r1/work/build/./gcc/xgcc > -B/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-10.1.0-r1/work/build/./gcc/ -xc++ -nostdinc > /dev/null -S -o

[Bug middle-end/77373] __attribute__((vector_size(N))) fails on AIX in symtab_node::get

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77373 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/96158] Symbols not emitted for module common variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug jit/96066] Cannot use values from some builtins because they are of void type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96066 --- Comment #2 from Antoni --- An attempt to use, let's say, __atomic_fetch_add_4, will result in a error like: libgccjit.so: error: unimplemented primitive type for builtin (type: BT_I4)

[Bug c++/59135] Incorrect ambiguity in constexpr function overloads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59135 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Known to fail|

[Bug libstdc++/96161] istream::ignore sets eofbit too soon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96161 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-07-10 See Also|

[Bug target/95581] [11 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3260 since r11-959-gb825a22890740f341eae566af27e18e528cd29a7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Bill Seurer : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21d3be2159f1b55e903caa2b1f80369d3681902b commit r10-8463-g21d3be2159f1b55e903caa2b1f80369d3681902b Author: Bill Seurer

[Bug fortran/96158] Symbols not emitted for module common variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug bootstrap/96160] Building gcc with multiple make jobs fails with: gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96160 --- Comment #3 from plevine457 at gmail dot com --- > Which make version are you using? GNU Make 4.3

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #34 from H.J. Lu --- A patch is posted at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-July/549880.html

[Bug c++/92812] Implement P1975R0: Fixing the wording of parenthesized aggregate-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Actually make that using T = int[1]; T&& arr = static_cast(42);

[Bug c++/92812] Implement P1975R0: Fixing the wording of parenthesized aggregate-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- I don't know if this is supposed to be valid now too: int arr[1] = static_cast(42); or using T = int[]; int arr[1] = static_cast(42); but it seems so.

[Bug bootstrap/96160] Building gcc with multiple make jobs fails with: gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96160 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Makefile.in: GCC_PASSES=xgcc$(exeext) specs SELFTEST_DEPS = $(GCC_PASSES) stmp-int-hdrs $(srcdir)/testsuite/selftests c/Make-lang.in C_SELFTEST_DEPS = cc1$(exeext) $(SELFTEST_DEPS) ... s-selftest-c:

[Bug libstdc++/96161] New: istream::ignore sets eofbit too soon

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96161 Bug ID: 96161 Summary: istream::ignore sets eofbit too soon Product: gcc Version: 10.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug bootstrap/96160] Building gcc with multiple make jobs fails with: gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96160 --- Comment #1 from plevine457 at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 48861 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48861=edit gcc-10.1.0-xgcc-selftest-makeopts.patch This patch appears to resolve the issue on my end

[Bug bootstrap/96160] New: Building gcc with multiple make jobs fails with: gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96160 Bug ID: 96160 Summary: Building gcc with multiple make jobs fails with: gcc/xgcc: No such file or directory Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug translation/96159] atomic creates incorrect code for possible isaligned struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159 --- Comment #2 from Martin Uecker --- Clang produces a call to __atomic_load. Also here is a godbolt link: https://godbolt.org/z/39PE1G

[Bug translation/96159] atomic creates incorrect code for possible isaligned struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159 --- Comment #1 from Martin Uecker --- On x86-64 the following struct has alignment 4 but gcc creates a single mov instruction which according to my understanding may fail to be atomic when it crosses a cache line boundary. Documentation

[Bug translation/96159] New: atomic creates incorrect code for possible isaligned struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96159 Bug ID: 96159 Summary: atomic creates incorrect code for possible isaligned struct Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/96158] New: Symbols not emitted for module common variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158 Bug ID: 96158 Summary: Symbols not emitted for module common variables Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug fortran/95980] ICE in get_unique_type_string, at fortran/class.c:485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95980 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70c884a4b82733027ac0e2620d09169b177080d7 commit r11-2026-g70c884a4b82733027ac0e2620d09169b177080d7 Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug fortran/96086] ICE in gfc_match_select_rank, at fortran/match.c:6645

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96086 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8a0b69f0b089c05d233b8e1a941825b1ceac93bd commit r11-2025-g8a0b69f0b089c05d233b8e1a941825b1ceac93bd Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug c++/92789] Non-obvious ?: behaviour with structurally equivalent types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92789 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug middle-end/96151] [11 Regression] bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96151 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/92789] Non-obvious ?: behaviour with structurally equivalent types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92789 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efe99cca78215e339ba79f0a900a896b4c0a3d36 commit r11-2022-gefe99cca78215e339ba79f0a900a896b4c0a3d36 Author: Richard Sandiford

[Bug middle-end/96151] [11 Regression] bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96151 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:510125d2272175f47b26227fbe9b8c8c5abfd988 commit r11-2023-g510125d2272175f47b26227fbe9b8c8c5abfd988 Author: Richard Sandiford

[Bug c++/95726] ICE with aarch64 __Float32x4_t as template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95726 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:efe99cca78215e339ba79f0a900a896b4c0a3d36 commit r11-2022-gefe99cca78215e339ba79f0a900a896b4c0a3d36 Author: Richard Sandiford

[Bug c++/92812] Implement P1975R0: Fixing the wording of parenthesized aggregate-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92812 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- This already works: // P1975R0 struct Aggr { int x; int y; }; int main () { Aggr a = static_cast(1); if (a.x != 1 || a.y != 0) __builtin_abort (); } but we generate q.C: In function ‘int

[Bug middle-end/96151] [11 Regression] bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96151 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Summary|bootstrap fails

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #33 from Mike Stump --- Please, unless you expect it to work in an OS independent way, please conditionalize on the systems it is known to work on, meaning, it important for it to work on it, you think all the work for it to work on

[Bug c++/96077] GCC accepts ill-legal local enum definition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96077 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek

[Bug d/96157] d: No NRVO when returning an array of a non-POD struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96157 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- If I were to propagate TREE_ADDRESSABLE from S to the static array, then the assert doesn't trigger. However, there lots of breakages that occur elsewhere within the front-end, so a little more extra handling

[Bug target/96125] __attribute__((target("cpu=power10,mma"))) does not set TARGET_MMA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug d/96157] New: d: No NRVO when returning an array of a non-POD struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96157 Bug ID: 96157 Summary: d: No NRVO when returning an array of a non-POD struct Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/96151] bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96151 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1

[Bug d/96156] New: d: No RVO when returning struct literals initialized with constructor.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96156 Bug ID: 96156 Summary: d: No RVO when returning struct literals initialized with constructor. Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/96155] "throw" that is not executed in constexpr function fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96155 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/94554] spurious -Waddress warning within "if constexpr" function-null compares

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94554 Klaus Rudolph changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lts-rudolph at gmx dot de --- Comment

[Bug target/96125] __attribute__((target("cpu=power10,mma"))) does not set TARGET_MMA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96125 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:45b7f80f2e591d4f674d2f0798d31d51a7e46a72 commit r10-8458-g45b7f80f2e591d4f674d2f0798d31d51a7e46a72 Author: Peter Bergner

[Bug c++/96155] New: "throw" that is not executed in constexpr function fails to compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96155 Bug ID: 96155 Summary: "throw" that is not executed in constexpr function fails to compile Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/96151] bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96151 --- Comment #1 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- This compile is successful like this but fails if I add -mcpu=power9. /home2/sawdey/work/gcc/mamboCI/build-mambo/./prev-gcc/xg++ -B/home2/sawdey/work/gcc/mamboCI/build-mambo/./prev-gcc/

[Bug d/96154] New: d: Add -Wvarargs warning flag to compiler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96154 Bug ID: 96154 Summary: d: Add -Wvarargs warning flag to compiler Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #32 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu --- >> If this is a Linux-only feature, shouldn't the tests rather be >> restricted to Linux instead? It certainly also fails on freebsd, >> darwin,

[Bug d/96153] New: d: struct literals have non-deterministic hash values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96153 Bug ID: 96153 Summary: d: struct literals have non-deterministic hash values Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug d/96152] New: d: associative array literals don't have alignment holes filled.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96152 Bug ID: 96152 Summary: d: associative array literals don't have alignment holes filled. Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #31 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #30) > > --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu --- > > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #28) > >> > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu --- > >> >

[Bug c/96151] New: bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96151 Bug ID: 96151 Summary: bootstrap fails due to ICE in c_omp_split_clauses Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug ipa/96130] [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body at gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c:2769 since r10-3199-g351e7c3b5fbd45bd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 48858 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48858=edit gcc11-pr96130.patch So, my fix would be like this (untested except on the testcase so far).

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #30 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #28) >> > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu --- >> > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de

[Bug ipa/96130] [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body at gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c:2769 since r10-3199-g351e7c3b5fbd45bd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- My understanding of the problem is that set_switch_stmt_execution_predicate figures out that the default: is unreachable (operand is a bitfield with values 0 to 7 and there are cases for all 8) and notes

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #29 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #28) > > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu --- > > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #26) > >> > --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- > >> >

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #28 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu --- > (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #26) >> > --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- >> > -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #27 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #26) > > --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- > > -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry generate special instruction > > sequence at function entry. Does

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #26 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- > -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry generate special instruction > sequence at function entry. Does Solaris support such special > instruction

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #25 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #24) > > --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- > > Do -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry work on Solaris? > > I don't have the slightest idea what that

[Bug ipa/96130] [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body at gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c:2769 since r10-3199-g351e7c3b5fbd45bd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Reduced testcase from the other PR which is shorter: struct S { unsigned j : 3; }; int k, l, m; void foo (struct S x) { while (l != 5) switch (x.j) { case 1: case 3: case 4:

[Bug ipa/96130] [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body at gcc/ipa-fnsummary.c:2769 since r10-3199-g351e7c3b5fbd45bd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96130 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug ipa/96150] [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body on switch since r10-3199

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96150 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/96150] [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body on switch since r10-3199

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96150 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Keywords|

[Bug ipa/96150] New: [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body on switch since r10-3199

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96150 Bug ID: 96150 Summary: [10/11 Regression] ICE in analyze_function_body on switch since r10-3199 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/95581] [11 Regression] ICE in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3260 since r11-959-gb825a22890740f341eae566af27e18e528cd29a7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95581 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Bill Seurer : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c6b7ba5de624f2a17d799bac5ff017cd065ce035 commit r11-2018-gc6b7ba5de624f2a17d799bac5ff017cd065ce035 Author: Bill Seurer,

[Bug c++/90448] [8/9/10/11 Regression] decltype-based lambda parameter pack is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90448 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[8/9 Regression]|[8/9/10/11 Regression]

[Bug testsuite/96149] gcc.dg/vect/slp-46.c on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96149 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- The two single-element interleaving cases are expected to be SLP vectorized where the target needs a splat operation (permute of two doubles {0, 0}). Ah, the reason is the aarch64 speciality that forces

[Bug target/93492] Broken code with -fpatchable-function-entry and -fcf-protection=full

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93492 --- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #23 from H.J. Lu --- > Do -fpatchable-function-entry and -mfentry work on Solaris? I don't have the slightest idea what that would mean, and the descriptions of the

[Bug c++/59135] Incorrect ambiguity in constexpr function overloads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59135 Bernd Baumanns changed: What|Removed |Added CC||familiebaumanns at gmail dot com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/95694] [9/10 Regression] ICE in trunc_int_for_mode, at explow.c:59 since r9-7156-g33579b59aaf02eb7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95694 --- Comment #6 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Just realised that this breaks bootstrap on arm-linux-gnueabihf. I'd originally moved the zeroing of incorrect targets to expand_expr_real_2, but then forgot why and undid it in the name of

[Bug testsuite/96149] New: gcc.dg/vect/slp-46.c on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96149 Bug ID: 96149 Summary: gcc.dg/vect/slp-46.c on aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite

[Bug gcov-profile/96148] [11 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indir-call-topn-[12].c UNRESOLVED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96148 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e969e9be88e83871ef66f4cd1592db7e8ae6244b commit r11-2017-ge969e9be88e83871ef66f4cd1592db7e8ae6244b Author: Martin Liska Date: Fri

[Bug gcov-profile/96148] [11 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indir-call-topn-[12].c UNRESOLVED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96148 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/96148] [11 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indir-call-topn-[12].c UNRESOLVED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96148 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-07-10 Assignee|unassigned

[Bug demangler/96143] C++ demangler should not add a lambda as a substitution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96143 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-07-10

[Bug c++/96052] Unlike Clang, alignment specifier is ignored on empty no_unique_address members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec commit r11-2014-ge47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug c++/95976] [[no_unique_address]] on union members has the opposite-of-intended effect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95976 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec commit r11-2014-ge47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec commit r11-2014-ge47dfca5aa473e77fdff95d631dc39de87a41eec Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug c++/96105] GCC not consistent on whether no_unique_address array is an empty data member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96105 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59 commit r10-8456-g3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/96052] Unlike Clang, alignment specifier is ignored on empty no_unique_address members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96052 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59 commit r10-8456-g3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/95976] [[no_unique_address]] on union members has the opposite-of-intended effect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95976 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59 commit r10-8456-g3bb330022ce47a3e8966a9930f392e497c608f59 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug gcov-profile/96148] New: [11 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indir-call-topn-[12].c UNRESOLVED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96148 Bug ID: 96148 Summary: [11 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indir-call-topn-[12].c UNRESOLVED Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug gcov-profile/96148] [11 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/crossmodule-indir-call-topn-[12].c UNRESOLVED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96148 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug testsuite/96109] gcc.dg/vect/slp-47.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96109 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/96133] [10 Regression] x86-64 gcc 10.1 using -O3 leads to wrong calculation since r10-1882-g831e688af50c5f77

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133 --- Comment #12 from Ingo Weyrich --- Thanks for fixing and kudos for your very fast response time!

[Bug target/96144] [11 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294 since r11-1970-gfab263ab0fc10ea0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96144 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/96144] [11 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294 since r11-1970-gfab263ab0fc10ea0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96144 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a6645a826f58b68f68dff30e6e6e78542099d0cc commit r11-2013-ga6645a826f58b68f68dff30e6e6e78542099d0cc Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Jul 9

[Bug c/96093] __MATHCALLX Error with ';' missing in header file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96093 --- Comment #2 from claudio daffra --- error disappear when i put at top of include file , probably ... FLAGS=-std=c11 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic LIBRARYS=-lm ... link without header boh .. can you close. Il giorno mer 8 lug 2020 alle ore

[Bug target/96144] [11 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294 since r11-1970-gfab263ab0fc10ea0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96144 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hjl.tools at gmail dot com

[Bug tree-optimization/96146] VRP turns a terminating loop into an infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever

[Bug tree-optimization/96133] [10 Regression] x86-64 gcc 10.1 using -O3 leads to wrong calculation since r10-1882-g831e688af50c5f77

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8614106f121db118f9db260b9949883485d0bbf6 commit r10-8455-g8614106f121db118f9db260b9949883485d0bbf6 Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/96133] [10 Regression] x86-64 gcc 10.1 using -O3 leads to wrong calculation since r10-1882-g831e688af50c5f77

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/96146] VRP turns a terminating loop into an infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146 --- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Sorry, scratch that last message. The optimisation is of course correct in that case. ;-)

[Bug tree-optimization/96146] VRP turns a terminating loop into an infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146 --- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- FWIW, it doesn't look like this is specific to POLY_INT_CST. A gimple reproducer shows a similar thing: void __GIMPLE (ssa, startwith("vrp2")) foo (volatile int *x) { int i; __BB(2):

[Bug c++/95700] read-md.c: "missing sentinel in function call" when building gcc with musl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95700 --- Comment #11 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- Sorry about that! I will have a look.

[Bug gcov-profile/96092] Should --coverage respect -ffile-prefix-map?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092 --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška --- Apparently we've got a patch in queue that does something similar: +fprofile-prefix-path= +Common·Joined·RejectNegative·Var(profile_prefix_path)

[Bug tree-optimization/96133] [10/11 Regression] x86-64 gcc 10.1 using -O3 leads to wrong calculation since r10-1882-g831e688af50c5f77

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96133 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e41c27bf549d957eb399d39d7d0c213f8733351 commit r11-1981-g6e41c27bf549d957eb399d39d7d0c213f8733351 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug target/96144] [11 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2294 since r11-1970-gfab263ab0fc10ea0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96144 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- This shows in multiple testsuite fails on x86-64 as well. FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512er-vrsqrt28ps-3.c (internal compiler error) FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512er-vrsqrt28ps-3.c (test for excess errors)

[Bug c++/96145] Weird output in compiling a typedef union as a function return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96145 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/96146] VRP turns a terminating loop into an infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/96147] [11 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-43.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96147 --- Comment #1 from Rainer Orth --- Created attachment 48856 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48856=edit 32-bit sparc-sun-solaris2.11 slp-45.c.163t.vect

[Bug tree-optimization/96147] [11 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-43.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96147 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug tree-optimization/96147] New: [11 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-43.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96147 Bug ID: 96147 Summary: [11 regression] gcc.dg/vect/slp-43.c etc. FAIL Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

  1   2   >