[Bug target/99900] feature request: 16-bit x86 C compiler / support compilation of (VirtualBox) BIOS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99900 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrewjenner at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/99949] ICE in setup_reg_classes, at reginfo.c:956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99949 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/99949] New: ICE in setup_reg_classes, at reginfo.c:956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99949 Bug ID: 99949 Summary: ICE in setup_reg_classes, at reginfo.c:956 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code Severity: normal

[Bug c++/99948] New: [modules] ICE in add_mergeable_specialization

- g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

[Bug target/99941] m_ALDERLAKE is missing from m_CORE_AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99941 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #0) > i386-options.c has > > #define m_ALDERLAKE (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U< #define m_CORE_AVX512 (m_SKYLAKE_AVX512 | m_CANNONLAKE \ >| m_ICELAKE_CLIENT |

[Bug tree-optimization/98736] [10/11 Regression] Wrong partition order generated in loop distribution pass since r10-619-g5879ab5fafedc8f6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736 --- Comment #6 from bin cheng --- Shall this be backported to 10/11 later? Thanks.

[Bug tree-optimization/98736] [10/11 Regression] Wrong partition order generated in loop distribution pass since r10-619-g5879ab5fafedc8f6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98736 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Bin Cheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0bdccac582c01c928a05f26edcd8f5ac24669eb commit r11-8023-ge0bdccac582c01c928a05f26edcd8f5ac24669eb Author: Bin Cheng Date: Wed Apr 7

[Bug target/99941] m_ALDERLAKE is missing from m_CORE_AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99941 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- If we were more concerned about the performance of the big core, the answer would be yes.

[Bug c++/52202] [C++11][DR 1376] Should not extend lifetime of temporary wrapped in static_cast to reference type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/52202] [C++11][DR 1376] Should not extend lifetime of temporary wrapped in static_cast to reference type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a7698c0e1ecad65b1ab651acc82b34e12c7efd35 commit r11-8022-ga7698c0e1ecad65b1ab651acc82b34e12c7efd35 Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/52202] [C++11][DR 1376] Should not extend lifetime of temporary wrapped in static_cast to reference type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52202 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/99908] SIMD: negating logical + if_else has a suboptimal codegen.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99908 --- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu --- Created attachment 50517 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50517=edit tested patch waiting for GCC12.

[Bug tree-optimization/99947] New: [11 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault "during GIMPLE pass: vect"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99947 Bug ID: 99947 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault "during GIMPLE pass: vect" Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/99946] fail to exchange if conditions in terms of likely/unlikely probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946 --- Comment #1 from Jiangning Liu --- Is there any gcc pass that can deal with this simple optimization?

[Bug tree-optimization/99946] New: fail to exchange if conditions in terms of likely/unlikely probability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99946 Bug ID: 99946 Summary: fail to exchange if conditions in terms of likely/unlikely probability Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945 --- Comment #3 from Vincent Lefèvre --- Note that with gcc-10 (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, I get the same behavior. But with gcc-9 (Debian 9.3.0-22) 9.3.0, the warning is missing in the 4 cases.

[Bug c/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945 --- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre --- Unless you consider that bug 83382 is actually 2 bugs, this is not a dup. Bug 83382 is about a false positive -Werror=uninitialized error. Do you mean that it also has a missing -Werror=maybe-uninitialized

[Bug sanitizer/83382] UBSAN tiggers false-positive warning [-Werror=uninitialized]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83382 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Ever

[Bug tree-optimization/90710] Bogus Wmaybe-uninitialized caused by __builtin_expect when compiled with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90710 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- Here's a smaller test case showing both the problem (first gcc invocation) and how it can be avoided (second invocation): $ (set -x && cat pr90710.c && gcc -Og -S -Wall pr90710.c && gcc -Dint=long -Og -S

[Bug tree-optimization/90710] Bogus Wmaybe-uninitialized caused by __builtin_expect when compiled with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90710 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2019-06-02 00:00:00 |2021-4-6 Known to fail|

[Bug target/99900] feature request: 16-bit x86 C compiler / support compilation of (VirtualBox) BIOS

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99900 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I've no idea whether the (not merged) ia16 port can do this, or whether the person currently maintaining a version of that port for GCC 6 is covered by an FSF copyright assignment.

[Bug c/99945] missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99945 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||83382 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug sanitizer/85777] [8/9/10/11 Regression] -fsanitize=undefined makes a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning disappear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777 --- Comment #16 from Vincent Lefèvre --- Well, concerning the initial testcase (and its cleaned-up version), the issue is either fixed or hidden by another bug, which I've just reported: PR99944. Indeed, I now get a maybe-uninitialized warning,

[Bug c/99945] New: missing maybe-uninitialized warning when using a cleanup function

i; auto void cf (int *t) { foo2 (i); } int t __attribute__ ((cleanup (cf))); t = 0; if (foo1 ()) i = foo1 (); i = N foo1 () || i; foo2 (i); return 0; } With a GCC snapshot built a few hours ago from the master branch on x86_64: cventin% gcc --version gcc (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 90058, which changed state. Bug 90058 Summary: False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/90058] False Positive in undefined-sanitizer only with GCC8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90058 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c/89723] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning with -Og (jump threading)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89723 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2019-03-15 00:00:00 |2021-4-6 See Also|

[Bug c/99944] New: incorrect maybe-uninitialized warning on variable defined as an array

f[g++] = a; (void) (f[0] || (g && h())); } With a GCC snapshot built a few hour ago from the master branch: cventin% gcc --version gcc (GCC) 11.0.1 20210406 (experimental) [...] cventin% gcc -Werror=maybe-uninitialized -O2 -c file.c file.c: In function ‘e1’: file.c:11:3: error: ‘f

[Bug middle-end/88897] [9/10/11 Regression] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field (missed CSE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Bogus maybe-uninitialized |[9/10/11 Regression] Bogus

[Bug c++/96673] [8/9/10 Regression] Friend class with templates and default constructor not recognized in C++14 or later

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.0 Summary|[8/9/10/11

[Bug c++/96673] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Friend class with templates and default constructor not recognized in C++14 or later

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de03b82f3ca9103eba3699d1dc91b1d0ee1f16cb commit r11-8018-gde03b82f3ca9103eba3699d1dc91b1d0ee1f16cb Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug middle-end/88897] Bogus maybe-uninitialized warning on class field (missed CSE)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88897 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Known to

[Bug tree-optimization/89697] SRA prevents -Wuninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89697 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Known to

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #9) > So something earlier is bad already. Yes, see #c7 and #c8.

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 88518, which changed state. Bug 88518 Summary: Function call defeats -Wuninitialized https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88518 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/60488] missing uninitialized warning (address taken, VOP)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60488 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matthew at wil dot cx --- Comment #10

[Bug middle-end/88518] Function call defeats -Wuninitialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88518 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > But what is wrong is that try_combine has been called at all, because > (reg:CCZ 17 flags) is used in 3 instructions rather than just one. That is not a

[Bug tree-optimization/99943] [11 Regression] wrong code at -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99943 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06 Summary|wrong

[Bug c++/96873] Internal compiler error in alias_ctad_tweaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johelegp at gmail dot com

[Bug c++/96673] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Friend class with templates and default constructor not recognized in C++14 or later

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96673 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/99909] The value of 'std::is_integral_v' is not usable in a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99909 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug tree-optimization/99943] New: wrong code at -Os

-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 11.0.1 20210406

[Bug c++/99901] [8/9/10 Regression] static const class var implemented with constexpr doesn't emit symbols in C++17 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99901 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.0 Keywords|wrong-code

[Bug c++/99901] [8/9/10/11 Regression] static const class var implemented with constexpr doesn't emit symbols in C++17 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99901 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8685348075d91945066dea9b564bd42cbc1d22bd commit r11-8017-g8685348075d91945066dea9b564bd42cbc1d22bd Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug target/99872] [11 Regression] optimizations sometimes lead to missing asm prefixes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872 --- Comment #6 from jyong at gcc dot gnu.org --- I can confirm the symbols are correctly generated regardless of -fno-leading-underscore or not, the internal symbols are no longer emitted as undefined after assembly. GCC can also finish building

[Bug other/89863] [meta-bug] Issues in gcc that other static analyzers (cppcheck, clang-static-analyzer, PVS-studio) find that gcc misses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863 Bug 89863 depends on bug 99917, which changed state. Bug 99917 Summary: gcc/d/dmd/mtype.c:5223: missing call to va_end ? https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99917 What|Removed |Added

[Bug d/99917] gcc/d/dmd/mtype.c:5223: missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99917 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug d/99917] gcc/d/dmd/mtype.c:5223: missing call to va_end ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99917 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain Buclaw : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d48f87d5c1927b1bf2009af3251fe8757e823713 commit r11-8016-gd48f87d5c1927b1bf2009af3251fe8757e823713 Author: Iain Buclaw Date: Tue

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- It is during stage1 and I was able to recreate using the system distro compiler, gcc version 4.3.4 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 152973] (SUSE Linux). I will bisect on the .o's now. FWIW here is a

[Bug rtl-optimization/99930] Failure to optimize floating point -abs(x) in nontrivial code at -O2/3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930 --- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool --- What happens here is https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blob;f=gcc/combine.c;h=3294575357bfcb19e589868da34364498a860dcf;hb=HEAD#l1884 "*2_1" for absneg:MODEF has a bare "use". And then we trigger

[Bug target/99905] [8/9/10/11 Regression] wrong code with -mno-mmx -mno-sse since r7-4540-gb229ab2a712ccd44

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99905 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #7 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I will try to recreate but I got rid of the old build compiler. It was a leftover from some work many years ago and I had forgotten I was even using it.

[Bug fortran/99922] Bind(C) with assumed length character should work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99922 --- Comment #2 from Brad Richardson --- Output from compiling and running with Intel: [pop-os:~/tmp/c_string_interop] ifort -V Intel(R) Fortran Intel(R) 64 Compiler Classic for applications running on Intel(R) 64, Version 2021.2.0 Build

[Bug target/99912] Unnecessary / inefficient spilling of AVX2 ymm registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912 --- Comment #5 from Erik Schnetter --- As you suggested, the problem is probably not caused by register spills, but by stores into a struct that are not optimized away. In this case, the respective struct elements are unused in the code. I

[Bug target/99781] [11 Regression] ICE in partial_subreg_p, at rtl.h:3144

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99781 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/99872] [11 Regression] optimizations sometimes lead to missing asm prefixes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99872 --- Comment #5 from jyong at gcc dot gnu.org --- I'll test out the patch soon.

[Bug libstdc++/99942] [8/9/10/11 Regression] COW std::string::data() is noexcept but can throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99942 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.3.0, 8.1.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/99942] New: [8/9/10/11 Regression] COW std::string::data() is noexcept but can throw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99942 Bug ID: 99942 Summary: [8/9/10/11 Regression] COW std::string::data() is noexcept but can throw Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/99941] New: m_ALDERLAKE is missing from m_CORE_AVX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99941 Bug ID: 99941 Summary: m_ALDERLAKE is missing from m_CORE_AVX2 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/99940] New: segmentation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99940 Bug ID: 99940 Summary: segmentation error Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06 Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c/99939] New: CMSE: -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve does not support correctly.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99939 Bug ID: 99939 Summary: CMSE: -march=armv8.1-m.main+mve does not support correctly. Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/99903] 32-bit x86 frontends randomly crash while reporting timing on Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99903 --- Comment #3 from Alexey Izbyshev --- Crashes eventually occurred with both one- and two-processor affinity masks, so pinning GCC to a single core doesn't help. But I've tracked the reason down. When `get_time()` from `gcc/timevar.c` gets

[Bug c++/99938] Non-void function with no return statement: Either no or misleading warning is printed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99938 --- Comment #2 from rschoe at de dot ibm.com --- Created attachment 50514 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50514=edit modified example (nullptr), which now shows a warning but wrong line number 11 wgen compiled with g++ -O1 -c

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- distribute_notes has: /* If this register is set or clobbered in I3, put the note there unless there is one already. */ if (reg_set_p (XEXP (note, 0), PATTERN (i3)))

[Bug c++/99938] Non-void function with no return statement: Either no or misleading warning is printed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99938 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c++/99938] New: Non-void function with no return statement: Either no or misleading warning is printed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99938 Bug ID: 99938 Summary: Non-void function with no return statement: Either no or misleading warning is printed Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|jakub at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/96873] Internal compiler error in alias_ctad_tweaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 --- Comment #5 from Mateusz Pusz --- Thanks!

[Bug c++/96873] Internal compiler error in alias_ctad_tweaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Yeah, hopefully for both.

[Bug c++/96873] Internal compiler error in alias_ctad_tweaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96873 --- Comment #3 from Mateusz Pusz --- Are there any chances for it to be fixed for gcc-11 or gcc-10.3? This feature is essential for the Physical Units library for C++Next.

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- It indeed goes wrong in the 105, 107 -> 108 try_combine, but at the start of that we have: (insn 105 23 106 6 (set (reg:QI 135) (const_int 1 [0x1])) "pr99927.c":13:24 77 {*movqi_internal} (nil))

[Bug target/99912] Unnecessary / inefficient spilling of AVX2 ymm registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99912 --- Comment #4 from Erik Schnetter --- I build with the compiler options /Users/eschnett/src/CarpetX/Cactus/view-compilers/bin/g++ -fopenmp -Wall -pipe -g -march=skylake -std=gnu++17 -O3 -fcx-limited-range -fexcess-precision=fast

[Bug target/99937] Optimization needed for ARM with single cycle multiplier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937 --- Comment #2 from mike.robins at talktalk dot net --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > You need to adjust RTX costing accordingly which likely means adding a new > subtarget tuning. Hi Richard Are you saying that this would have

[Bug target/99937] Optimization needed for ARM with single cycle multiplier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Trying 105, 107 -> 108: 105: r135:QI=0x1 107: flags:CCZ=cmp(r107:SI,0) 108: r96:QI={(flags:CCZ==0)?r107:SI#0:r135:QI} REG_DEAD r107:SI REG_DEAD flags:CC Failed to match this instruction:

[Bug driver/99896] g++ drops -lc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99896 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug libstdc++/99871] #includes inside push visibility scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99871 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan

[Bug c/99937] New: Optimization needed for ARM with single cycle multiplier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99937 Bug ID: 99937 Summary: Optimization needed for ARM with single cycle multiplier Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Before combine it looks fine: (insn 23 22 105 6 (parallel [ (set (reg:SI 108) (udiv:SI (reg:SI 104) (reg/v:SI 102 [ var_6 ]))) (set (reg:SI 107)

[Bug tree-optimization/99927] [11 Regression] Maybe wrong code since r11-39-gf9e1ea10e657af9f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99927 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug other/99933] gcc/brig/brigfrontend/brig-function.cc: 4 * possible performance problem ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99933 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06 Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think that would be great.

[Bug middle-end/99857] [11 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.c/declare-variant-1.c (test for excess errors) by r11-7926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- > Honza stated that he's "looking into it", > . I do just got distracted by easter. Problem has to be release_body happening mid offloading

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 10 doesn't require C++11 and so in theory everything from GCC 4.1 till GCC 11 should be supported as system compiler, perhaps we need some workaround for some known bugs somewhere (we have a couple of

[Bug target/99781] [11 Regression] ICE in partial_subreg_p, at rtl.h:3144

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99781 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4bbd51afaa4a3c116fb538d912b35e126be80b41 commit r11-8008-g4bbd51afaa4a3c116fb538d912b35e126be80b41 Author: Vladimir N. Makarov

[Bug c++/99936] New: FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header* on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99936 Bug ID: 99936 Summary: FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header* on Darwin Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Apr 2021, seurer at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 > > seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug demangler/99935] New: Stack exhaustion demangling rust mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99935 Bug ID: 99935 Summary: Stack exhaustion demangling rust mangled name Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug bootstrap/99920] [10 regression] ICE building gcc 10 on power 7 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99920 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/99934] bad_array_new_length thrown when non-throwing allocation function would have been used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99934 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- For the non-global replaceable operator new call, we put the outer_nelts_check already into the size argument before we actually look up the call: tree errval = TYPE_MAX_VALUE (sizetype); if

[Bug tree-optimization/99880] [10 Regression] ICE in maybe_set_vectorized_backedge_value, at tree-vect-loop.c:9161 since r10-3711-g69f8c1aef5cdcc54

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99880 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11 Regression] ICE in |[10 Regression] ICE in

[Bug tree-optimization/99880] [10/11 Regression] ICE in maybe_set_vectorized_backedge_value, at tree-vect-loop.c:9161 since r10-3711-g69f8c1aef5cdcc54

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99880 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e5c170e080399fb3d24a38bbfcd66bd4675abe53 commit r11-8005-ge5c170e080399fb3d24a38bbfcd66bd4675abe53 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug middle-end/99857] [11 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.c/declare-variant-1.c (test for excess errors) by r11-7926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug other/99933] gcc/brig/brigfrontend/brig-function.cc: 4 * possible performance problem ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99933 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pekka.jaaskelainen@parmance

[Bug rtl-optimization/99930] Failure to optimize floating point -abs(x) in nontrivial code at -O2/3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/99930] Failure to optimize floating point -abs(x) in nontrivial code at -O2/3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99930 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-06

  1   2   >