[Bug target/92055] [avr] Support 64-bit double

2019-10-11 Thread gjl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92055 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug target/92047] [10 regression] aarch64 regressions after r276645

2019-10-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92047 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/92048] [10 regression] armeb regression after r276645

2019-10-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92048 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/91987] -fstrict-eval-order issues

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Oct 11 07:36:07 2019 New Revision: 276860 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276860=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/91987 cp/ * decl2.c (grok_array_decl): For

[Bug c++/91987] -fstrict-eval-order issues

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91987 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Partially fixed, the call argument issue is unresolved, and I guess some analysis about say .*/->* is needed too.

[Bug libgcc/78804] [RX] -m64bit-doubles does not work

2019-10-11 Thread claziss at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804 --- Comment #17 from Claudiu Zissulescu --- Removing FLOAT_BIT_ORDER_MISMATCH seems it doesn't affect ARC backend as well.

[Bug c/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread romain.geissler at amadeus dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 --- Comment #1 from Romain Geissler --- Python code is here: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/v3.7.4/Python/_warnings.c#L753 #define ascii_lower(c) ((c <= 127) ? Py_TOLOWER(c) : 0) /* if filename.lower().endswith(".pyc"): */

[Bug fortran/92017] ICE in gfc_expr_attr, at fortran/primary.c:2674

2019-10-11 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92017 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/92061] build of gencondmd fails with clang-9.0 (trunk, gcc 9.2.1, probably other older versions of gcc as yet untested) with undefined symbols for ix86_binary_operator_ok and related.

2019-10-11 Thread ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061 --- Comment #4 from Ken Cunningham --- Thanks for the quick analysis. For now we blacklisted clang > 8.x from building gcc, while we wait to see what happens with this.

[Bug c/92063] New: [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread romain.geissler at amadeus dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 Bug ID: 92063 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c Product: gcc Version: 10.0

[Bug fortran/92050] internal compiler error: in gfc_conv_procedure_call

2019-10-11 Thread burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92050 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/92061] build of gencondmd fails with clang-9.0 (trunk, gcc 9.2.1, probably other older versions of gcc as yet untested) with undefined symbols for ix86_binary_operator_ok and related.

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/77918] S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered operands.

2019-10-11 Thread iii at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 --- Comment #9 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: iii Date: Fri Oct 11 09:00:26 2019 New Revision: 276871 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276871=gcc=rev Log: S/390: Use signaling FP comparison instructions

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread jan at jki dot io
Python/_warnings .o -O3 -Wsign-compare -Wextra -Wno-unused-result -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wno-cast-function-type -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -std=c99 -vers ion -fwrapv -fPIC -o _warnings.s GNU C99 (Gentoo 10.0.0_pre) version 10.0.0-pre 20191011

[Bug target/77918] S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered operands.

2019-10-11 Thread iii at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 --- Comment #11 from iii at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: iii Date: Fri Oct 11 09:03:00 2019 New Revision: 276872 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276872=gcc=rev Log: S/390: Test signaling FP comparison instructions gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:

[Bug target/77918] S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered operands.

2019-10-11 Thread jan at jki dot io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 Jan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jan at jki dot io --- Comment #10 from Jan ---

[Bug target/77918] S390: Floating point comparisons don't raise invalid for unordered operands.

2019-10-11 Thread jan at jki dot io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77918 --- Comment #12 from Jan --- ups wrong bug sry

[Bug target/92061] build of gencondmd fails with clang-9.0 (trunk, gcc 9.2.1, probably other older versions of gcc as yet untested) with undefined symbols for ix86_binary_operator_ok and related.

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92061 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- That said, I can't reproduce on x86_64-linux with clang version 10.0.0 (trunk 374035) if I build build/gencondmd.o, both with -O0 or -O2, nm -u shows just U ferror U fflush

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread jan at jki dot io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 --- Comment #4 from Jan --- Created attachment 47019 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47019=edit preprocessed source

[Bug c++/92064] New: operator/ not resolved for directory_entry and const char*

2019-10-11 Thread penkrat8 at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92064 Bug ID: 92064 Summary: operator/ not resolved for directory_entry and const char* Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/92065] New: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

2019-10-11 Thread rp83 at gmx dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 Bug ID: 92065 Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1 Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Reduced testcase: int foo (int a, int b, int *c, short *d) { return (c[0] ? b : 0) == 'y' && ((a ? d[0] : c[0]) ? b : 0) == 'c'; }

[Bug rtl-optimization/92007] [9/10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: EH edge crosses section boundary in bb 7)

2019-10-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- We can also just punt on crossing edges where needed.

[Bug fortran/91715] ICE in resolve_fntype, at fortran/resolve.c:16884

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Oct 11 17:59:09 2019 New Revision: 276899 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276899=gcc=rev Log: 2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91715 * decl.c

[Bug rtl-optimization/91860] [10 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at rtl.h:2279 with -Og -fipa-cp -g --param=max-combine-insns=3

2019-10-11 Thread wilson at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91860 --- Comment #10 from Jim Wilson --- Author: wilson Date: Fri Oct 11 18:41:35 2019 New Revision: 276901 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276901=gcc=rev Log: Extend subst to simplify CONST_INT inside SIGN_EXTEND. This addresses PR 91860

[Bug c++/92070] [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/92062] [9/10 Regression] ODR-use by static_assert ignored for static member of class template

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Candidate fix: --- a/gcc/cp/pt.c +++ b/gcc/cp/pt.c @@ -6542,6 +6542,7 @@ check_valid_ptrmem_cst_expr (tree type, tree expr, static bool has_value_dependent_address (tree op) { +

[Bug fortran/92072] [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory

2019-10-11 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The ICE also disappears if an empty line is added between the PUBLIC statement and the INCLUDE.

[Bug fortran/92018] ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at fortran/trans-const.c:370

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/91930] [10 Regression] internal compiler error: in lazily_declare_fn, at cp/method.c:2423 with -fconcepts

2019-10-11 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91930 David Binderman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dcb314 at hotmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/92070] New: [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

2019-10-11 Thread dimhen at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 Bug ID: 92070 Summary: [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/92062] [9/10 Regression] ODR-use by static_assert ignored for static member of class template

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Looks like the issue is that the condition of the static_assert (_CONVERT_EXPR(x)) is no longer considered instantiation_dependent_expression_p, because of the location wrapper. Before r267272 the condition

[Bug fortran/92072] [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory

2019-10-11 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The ICE disappears if the include line and the PUBLIC declaration are interchanged.

[Bug fortran/92072] [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory

2019-10-11 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The ICE also disappears if the include file starts with an empty line.

[Bug tree-optimization/92069] [10 Regression] ice in vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1, at tree-vect-loop.c:560

2019-10-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target|

[Bug fortran/92072] New: [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory

2019-10-11 Thread anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92072 Bug ID: 92072 Summary: [10 Regression] ICE on include from other directory Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug fortran/91715] ICE in resolve_fntype, at fortran/resolve.c:16884

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Oct 11 20:19:28 2019 New Revision: 276905 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276905=gcc=rev Log: 2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91715 * decl.c

[Bug c++/92049] [10 Regression] bogus errors with -fchecking=2

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/92049] [10 Regression] bogus errors with -fchecking=2

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/92070] [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Oct 11 20:53:26 2019 New Revision: 276907 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276907=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/92070 - bogus error with -fchecking=2. * g++.dg/expr/cond17.C:

[Bug c++/92062] [9/10 Regression] ODR-use by static_assert ignored for static member of class template

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/91715] ICE in resolve_fntype, at fortran/resolve.c:16884

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91715 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/92019] [10 Regression] ICE in find_inquiry_ref, at expr.c:1790

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92019 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/92049] bogus errors with -fchecking=2

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92049 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Fri Oct 11 20:44:02 2019 New Revision: 276906 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276906=gcc=rev Log: PR c++/92049 - extra error with -fchecking=2. The concepts merge brought this

[Bug c++/92070] [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/92071] New: ice in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5378

2019-10-11 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92071 Bug ID: 92071 Summary: ice in gen_movsi, at config/arm/arm.md:5378 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug fortran/91649] ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Oct 11 20:06:15 2019 New Revision: 276904 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276904=gcc=rev Log: 2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91649 check.c

[Bug fortran/91649] ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug c++/90998] [9/10 Regression] ICE (segfalut) in gcc/cp/call.c compare_ics() with -std=c++17

2019-10-11 Thread dan at stahlke dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90998 Dan Stahlke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dan at stahlke dot org --- Comment #3

[Bug fortran/91649] ICE in gfc_resolve_findloc, at fortran/iresolve.c:1827

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91649 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Oct 11 18:05:35 2019 New Revision: 276900 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276900=gcc=rev Log: 2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91649 check.c

[Bug lto/91576] [10 Regression] error: invalid conversion in gimple call since r272749

2019-10-11 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91576 --- Comment #7 from David Binderman --- After much slow reduction, the reduced C++ source code seems to be class b; struct c { using aj = b *; }; struct d { using aj = c::aj; }; struct f { using aj = d::aj; }; template f::aj ap(ao);

[Bug c++/92070] [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

2019-10-11 Thread dimhen at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 --- Comment #2 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > Will be fixed by my patch > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-10/msg00782.html > but the testcase is useful. dup PR92049?

[Bug c++/92070] [10 regression] -fchecking=2 error: taking address of rvalue

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92070 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Yes, essentially, but I don't want to lose the new test.

[Bug libstdc++/92059] Crash on tr2::dynamic_bitset::operator=() with optimization

2019-10-11 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Author: redi Date: Fri Oct 11 15:29:55 2019 New Revision: 276890 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276890=gcc=rev Log: PR libstdc++/92059 fix several bugs in tr2::dynamic_bitset PR

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread iii at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 Ilya Leoshkevich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iii at linux dot ibm.com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/92007] [9/10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: EH edge crosses section boundary in bb 7)

2019-10-11 Thread iii at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007 --- Comment #5 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- +1 regarding renaming, I just wanted to keep it simple here. Landing pad issue aside, I'm beginning to wonder if we can have a jump pass after reload at all? For example, if hotness of a basic block

[Bug rtl-optimization/92007] [9/10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: EH edge crosses section boundary in bb 7)

2019-10-11 Thread iii at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007 --- Comment #7 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- How can we do this here? When we make a decision to eliminate bb 5, all the "nearby" edges are hot. Having eliminated bb 5, we cannot avoid making bb 6 cold, since this would violate CFG integrity: as

[Bug libstdc++/92057] variant converting constructor fails for primitives

2019-10-11 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid

[Bug c++/92068] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on invalid in process_partial_specialization

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92068 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug c/92069] ice in vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1, at tree-vect-loop.c:560

2019-10-11 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069 --- Comment #1 from David Binderman --- Reduced source code is a, c, d; double b; e() { for (; d; d++) { double f; a = 2; for (; a; a++) { c = b; b = f; f = c; } } }

[Bug libstdc++/92059] Crash on tr2::dynamic_bitset::operator=() with optimization

2019-10-11 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- Thanks for the report, the dynamic_bitset is now less broken than it was. I plan to backport the fixes to the release branches.

[Bug rtl-optimization/92007] [9/10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: EH edge crosses section boundary in bb 7)

2019-10-11 Thread iii at linux dot ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007 --- Comment #3 from Ilya Leoshkevich --- Jump threading has converted this: +-- 2/HOT + | | v

[Bug target/90835] Incompatibilities with macOS 10.15 headers

2019-10-11 Thread jeremyhu at macports dot org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835 --- Comment #15 from Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia --- (In reply to John Marshall from comment #14) > [In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia in comment #12] > > In the future, please file radars for these problems and ping me directly if > you

[Bug rtl-optimization/92007] [9/10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: EH edge crosses section boundary in bb 7)

2019-10-11 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007 --- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool --- Well it should at least be renamed then ;-) But is that good anyway? We then do not have a jump pass after reload (and before split2 and pro/epi, i.e. shrink-wrapping) any more.

[Bug libstdc++/92064] [DR 3171] operator/ not resolved for directory_entry and const char*

2019-10-11 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92064 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/92069] New: ice in vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1, at tree-vect-loop.c:560

2019-10-11 Thread dcb314 at hotmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92069 Bug ID: 92069 Summary: ice in vect_analyze_scalar_cycles_1, at tree-vect-loop.c:560 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/92053] Compilation fails or succeeds depending on the optimization flags

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053 --- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek --- Thanks for the reduction. There's something wacky going on with inlining, with -O -fno-inline this compiles.

[Bug tree-optimization/92033] ICE during dom with -march=armv8.2-a+sve

2019-10-11 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92033 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug rtl-optimization/42575] arm-eabi-gcc 64-bit multiply weirdness

2019-10-11 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42575 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/92007] [9/10 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: EH edge crosses section boundary in bb 7)

2019-10-11 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92007 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- The current two jump passes we have after reload are there for a reason. Some targets will be very unhappy if you delete them. Like Jakub says, you need to avoid doing stuff with crossing edges in many

[Bug c++/92062] [9/10 Regression] ODR-use by static_assert ignored for static member of class template

2019-10-11 Thread mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92062 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/92057] variant converting constructor fails for primitives

2019-10-11 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92057 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/92019] [10 Regression] ICE in find_inquiry_ref, at expr.c:1790

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92019 --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Oct 11 17:41:29 2019 New Revision: 276897 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276897=gcc=rev Log: 2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/92019 * array.c

[Bug fortran/92018] ICE in gfc_conv_constant_to_tree, at fortran/trans-const.c:370

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92018 --- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Fri Oct 11 17:52:27 2019 New Revision: 276898 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276898=gcc=rev Log: 2019-10-11 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/92018 * check.c

[Bug c++/92073] New: references/pointers to thread_local are not constant expressions

2019-10-11 Thread tyker at outlook dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92073 Bug ID: 92073 Summary: references/pointers to thread_local are not constant expressions Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/90052] Warning for (x == 1 && x == 2) [i.e. -Wlogical-op] should be in -Wall

2019-10-11 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90052 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Warning for (x == 1 && x == |Warning for (x == 1 && x ==

[Bug fortran/90297] gcc/fortran/resolve.c: 2 * possibly redundant code ?

2019-10-11 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90297 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1) > svn blame says: > > 182796 pault for (args= e->value.function.actual; args; args = > args->next) > 182796 pault { >

[Bug middle-end/26241] [7/8/9 Regression] None of the IPA passes are documented in passes.texi

2019-10-11 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26241 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[7/8/9/10 Regression] None |[7/8/9 Regression] None of

[Bug target/91796] Sub-optimal YMM register allocation.

2019-10-11 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91796 --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Maxim Egorushkin from comment #3) > It seems to me that register allocation has been a weak spot in gcc for > years. Most such testcases show issues with arguments/return in very small

[Bug ipa/92074] New: [10 regression] 26% performance regression on Spec2017 548.exchange2_r

2019-10-11 Thread linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92074 Bug ID: 92074 Summary: [10 regression] 26% performance regression on Spec2017 548.exchange2_r Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/81512] duplicate note in -Walloca-larger-than and alloca in a return statement

2019-10-11 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81512 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #29 from Wilco --- (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #28) > For these kind of small loops, it would be acceptable to unroll in GIMPLE, > because register pressure and instruction cost may not be major concerns; > just like

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #30 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > --- Comment #29 from Wilco --- > (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #28) > > For

[Bug tree-optimization/91091] [missed optimization] Missing optimization in unaliased pointers

2019-10-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
. (eliminate_dom_walker::eliminate_stmt): Properly handle non-size precision stores in redundant store elimination. * gcc.dg/torture/20191011-1.c: New testcase. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-82.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-83.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa

[Bug tree-optimization/90883] Generated code is worse if returned struct is unnamed

2019-10-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
. (eliminate_dom_walker::eliminate_stmt): Properly handle non-size precision stores in redundant store elimination. * gcc.dg/torture/20191011-1.c: New testcase. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-82.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-fre-83.c: Likewise. * gcc.dg/tree-ssa

[Bug c++/92053] Compilation fails or succeeds depending on the optimization flags

2019-10-11 Thread antoshkka at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92053 Antony Polukhin changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-reduction,|accepts-invalid

[Bug c++/92067] New: __is_constructible(incomplete_type) should make the program ill-formed

2019-10-11 Thread antoshkka at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92067 Bug ID: 92067 Summary: __is_constructible(incomplete_type) should make the program ill-formed Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/92066] [10 regression] Many vectorization tests FAIL

2019-10-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92066 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #34 from Wilco --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #30) > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > > > --- Comment #29 from Wilco --- > > (In

[Bug middle-end/92063] [10 Regression] ICE in operation_could_trap_p, at tree-eh.c:2528 when compiling Python's Python/_warnings.c

2019-10-11 Thread jan at jki dot io
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92063 --- Comment #8 from Jan --- Fix works for me

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > --- Comment #34 from Wilco --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #30)

[Bug c++/92024] crash in check_local_shadow

2019-10-11 Thread bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92024 --- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger --- there is alos a valid test case where an ICE happens: template struct S { S () { struct c; { struct c {}; } } }; S s;

[Bug libstdc++/92059] Crash on tr2::dynamic_bitset::operator=() with optimization

2019-10-11 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Ugh, this is a can of worms: #include #include int main() { std::tr2::dynamic_bitset<> a(2, 4); std::tr2::dynamic_bitset<> b(3, 4); assert(a != b); } /usr/include/c++/8/tr2/dynamic_bitset:100:13:

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #38 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > --- Comment #37 from Segher Boessenkool --- > -- If it is done in RTL it should

[Bug libstdc++/92059] Crash on tr2::dynamic_bitset::operator=() with optimization

2019-10-11 Thread jharris at simplexinvestments dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92059 --- Comment #6 from John Harris --- Thanks, JW. While you're in there, the base class needs a copy constructor, as its absence prevents use of the derived class copy constructor (won't compile).

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #36 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, wilco at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > --- Comment #32 from Wilco --- > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #31)

[Bug target/90835] Incompatibilities with macOS 10.15 headers

2019-10-11 Thread John.W.Marshall at glasgow dot ac.uk
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90835 --- Comment #14 from John Marshall --- [In reply to Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia in comment #12] In the future, please file radars for these problems and ping me directly if you want. Issues in macOS headers don't get fixed if we don't know about

[Bug tree-optimization/88760] GCC unrolling is suboptimal

2019-10-11 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 --- Comment #33 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, segher at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88760 > > --- Comment #31 from Segher Boessenkool --- > Gimple passes know a lot about

[Bug target/88630] Incorrect float negating together with convertion to int on ST-40

2019-10-11 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88630 --- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo --- Author: olegendo Date: Fri Oct 11 11:12:28 2019 New Revision: 276877 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=276877=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ Backport from mainline 2019-10-10 Oleg Endo PR

  1   2   >