[Bug target/89485] Support vectorcall calling convention on windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89485 Agner Fog changed: What|Removed |Added CC||agner at agner dot org --- Comment #1 from A

[Bug c++/91210] Segmentation fault in random.tcc when compiling GCC 9.1 on linux powerpc(ppc) 64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91210 Martin Marko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91383] C++17 should remove some library feature deprecated in C++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91383 --- Comment #2 from Frédéric Bron --- I agree that in C++14, they should be marked deprecated. But the features have been removed in C++17. They are not deprecated anymore, so in my opinion, they should not be available with -std=c++17.

[Bug c++/91383] C++17 should remove some library feature deprecated in C++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91383 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- > "may fail to compile" we don't have to remove them, keeping them is actually on purpose so it is easier for users to have access to new features without breaking the old ones. What we could do is use the dep

[Bug target/87767] Missing AVX512 memory broadcast for constant vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87767 Agner Fog changed: What|Removed |Added CC||agner at agner dot org --- Comment #2 from A

[Bug translation/79618] prevent missing space in multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79618 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug c++/91383] New: C++17 should remove some library feature deprecated in C++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91383 Bug ID: 91383 Summary: C++17 should remove some library feature deprecated in C++14 Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/81429] maybe_unused attribute triggers syntax error when used on first argument to a constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #7 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/91382] New: Missing pedwarn when using [[maybe_unused]] in C++14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91382 Bug ID: 91382 Summary: Missing pedwarn when using [[maybe_unused]] in C++14 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c++/81429] maybe_unused attribute triggers syntax error when used on first argument to a constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- I have a fix. Extended testcase: void fn1([[maybe_unused]] int a) { } void fn2(int a [[maybe_unused]]) { } void fn3(__attribute__((unused)) int a) { } void fn4(int a __attribute__((unused))) { } struct S1

[Bug c++/91334] [10 Regression] ICE in propagate_necessity at gcc/tree-ssa-dce.c:813 since r273791

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91334 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|FIXED

[Bug fortran/47191] Misleading error message if part-ref starts with DATA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47191 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P5 |P4 CC|

[Bug c/67224] UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224 --- Comment #29 from Lewis Hyatt --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #28) > Thanks for working on this! I encourage sending this to gcc-patches once > a few fixes have been made and you've done the legal paperwork, see >

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #11 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Tue Aug 6 21:32:09 2019 New Revision: 274149 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274149&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-06 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/91359

[Bug tree-optimization/91227] pointer relational expression not folded but equivalent inequality is

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91227 --- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I think the most likely case for code using such comparisons is not a mistake, but code doing something like memmove - code that checks whether two arrays overlap, and which one comes firs

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371 --- Comment #4 from Roland Schulz --- Are there any known issues with the libc++ solution? Otherwise it seems like the simpler solution than adding a builtin.

[Bug fortran/84591] Compiling gfortran.dg/bind_c_usage_10.f03 with -fdefault-integer-8 gives errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84591 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c++/81429] maybe_unused attribute triggers syntax error when used on first argument to a constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- Small test from Hana: void foo([[maybe_unused]] int a) { } struct bar { bar([[maybe_unused]] int a) { } };

[Bug c++/81429] maybe_unused attribute triggers syntax error when used on first argument to a constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/81429] maybe_unused attribute triggers syntax error when used on first argument to a constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81429 Hana Dusíková changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hanicka at hanicka dot net --- Comment #

[Bug fortran/42546] ALLOCATED statement typo in the docs and for scalar variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42546 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Tue Aug 6 19:46:29 2019 New Revision: 274147 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274147&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-08-01 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/42546

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > you'd still need a change to the Itanium ABI. Or an attribute like [[clang::trivial_abi]], or the one that p1029 is trying to standardize. But since we would nee

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- We already have 24 partial specializations. To handle ms_abi, fastcall and thiscall would need another 72. We could probably stamp them out with preprocessor macros, but I'd prefer not to. I think we need s

[Bug c++/91380] Requesting a better diagnostic for dumb include mistake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91380 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #2 from Jonatha

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, when configured with --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace But that's just for the library, you'd still need a change to the Itanium ABI.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #10 from Brian T. Carcich --- thank you. On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 2:28 PM kargl at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 > > --- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.or

[Bug bootstrap/62077] --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077 --- Comment #70 from Eric Gallager --- With some distributions wanting to make LTO the default, I'd think this issue might become a bit more important...

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91359 --- Comment #9 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Against my better judgement, I have submitted a patch that seems to fix this issue.

[Bug bootstrap/91352] [10 Regression] Jobserver detection uses fcntl, which is not available on mingw-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91352 mateuszb at poczta dot onet.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mateuszb at poczta dot on

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371 --- Comment #2 from Roland Schulz --- Would you recommend to fix this by adding the specializations for the alternative calling conventions to std::is_function or by switching to the libc++ approach?

[Bug c/67224] UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67224 --- Comment #28 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, lhyatt at gmail dot com wrote: > I am interested in helping out with this if there is still interest to support > this feature. (Full disclosure, I don't have any exper

[Bug debug/91381] New: ARM NEON register variable DWARF incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91381 Bug ID: 91381 Summary: ARM NEON register variable DWARF incorrect Product: gcc Version: 7.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: debug

[Bug middle-end/91226] wrong propagation of non-canonical _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 constant (BID only)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91226 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/91226] wrong propagation of non-canonical _Decimal64 constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91226 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- This appears to be a bug in libdecnumber/bid/bid2dpd_dpd2bid.c. _bid_to_dpd32 checks for a too-large significand, but _bid_to_dpd64 does not. Furthermore, _bid_to_dpd128 has the same bug

[Bug c++/91380] Requesting a better diagnostic for dumb include mistake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91380 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91380] New: Requesting a better diagnostic for dumb include mistake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91380 Bug ID: 91380 Summary: Requesting a better diagnostic for dumb include mistake Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priori

[Bug libgcc/91379] New: internal compiler error __gcov_fork

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91379 Bug ID: 91379 Summary: internal compiler error __gcov_fork Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libgcc

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On August 6, 2019 5:36:49 PM GMT+02:00, "matz at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 > >--- Comment #9 from Michael Matz --- >(In reply to rguent...@suse.

[Bug tree-optimization/91351] [9/10 Regression] -fstrict-enums generates incorrect code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91351 --- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > So the integer_type of the enumeral_type hash precision:5 and: > min > > and > > max > > which is what one would expect from -fstrict-enums. But the enum type

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 --- Comment #9 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > >The fun thing is, there's a difference between these two loop nests: > > > > for (i) for (j) a[i][0] = f(a[i+1][0]); > > for (i) for (j) b[i][j] = f(a[i+1

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91362 --- Comment #3 from matic at nimp dot co.uk --- Sorry I was not aware of "aliasing". Thanks for the pointers to solutions.

[Bug c/91206] -Wformat doesn't warn for %hd with char parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91206 --- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- There is a known ambiguity in the standard requirements where the argument has the correct promoted type but not the expected type before promotion. I wrote up some notes on this some time

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6) > libstdc++ would not take > advantage of it because it would break the library's stable ABI. There is always this mode (is it _GLIBCXX_INLINE_VERSION? I thought I

[Bug target/91148] PowerPC build gets several warnings due to -Wformat-diag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91148 --- Comment #14 from Martin Sebor --- Jeff has a setup that builds most if not all targets. I think he's also got it hooked up to an emulator but I'm not sure he runs tests. Unfortunately, there's no Web interface to it that we could access. I

[Bug c/91193] ICE on invalid: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘declaration’ (function_decl) in grokdeclarator, at c/c-decl.c:5956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91193 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/91130] [9/10 Regression] -MF clashes with -flto on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91130 --- Comment #32 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I concur that passing CL_DRIVER instead of CL_LANG_ALL is correct here.

[Bug libstdc++/91281] std::optional debug checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91281 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/91281] std::optional debug checks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91281 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse -

[Bug target/91148] PowerPC build gets several warnings due to -Wformat-diag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91148 --- Comment #13 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- As I noted in bug 40883 comment 8, you can detect such issues in target-specific code by building a cross compiler using a native compiler from the same trunk version, and configuring with

[Bug c++/64679] Spurious redefinition error when parsing not-quite-most-vexing-parse declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64679 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|diagnostic | Last reconfirmed|2017-09-28 00:00:0

[Bug c++/91155] [9/10 Regression] __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ gets truncated when char template parameter is '\0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91155 --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- Jason?

[Bug tree-optimization/91351] [9/10 Regression] -fstrict-enums generates incorrect code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91351 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- On 8/6/19 2:54 PM, glisse at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Does the enum really have a precision of 5 bits? I would have expected > (1<<5)-11 instead of 4294967285 (i.e. (1<<32)-11), without looking at it too > clo

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- The problem is not with bind and bind_front, it's that std::is_function doesn't recognize such a function, and so std::decay doesn't know what to do with it: #include int bar(int) __attribute__((ms_abi));

[Bug c++/67225] [concepts] Expression constraint with a constrained result turns off access checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67225 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c++/91378] [9/10 regression] [C++17] ICE in type_dependent_expression_p with noexcept and deduced return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91378 --- Comment #1 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Tue Aug 6 14:07:59 2019 New Revision: 274143 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=274143&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/91378 - ICE with noexcept and auto return type. Here, sinc

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91371 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91378] [9/10 regression] [C++17] ICE in type_dependent_expression_p with noexcept and deduced return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91378 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91378] New: [9/10 regression] [C++17] ICE in type_dependent_expression_p with noexcept and deduced return type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91378 Bug ID: 91378 Summary: [9/10 regression] [C++17] ICE in type_dependent_expression_p with noexcept and deduced return type Product: gcc Version: 9.1.1

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, it needs co-operation between G++ and all other compilers using the same ABI, which makes it out of scope for GCC's bugzilla. G++ cannot unilaterally change the ABI here, and even if we could, libstdc++

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90597 --- Comment #5 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2019-08-05 10:45 p.m., msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- > pr89797 reported a similar (but not quite the same) ICE in the aarch64 > back-end. Maybe the

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358 --- Comment #3 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to Antony Polukhin from comment #2) > (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #1) > Valgrind complains are distracting. GDB entering the destructor is > missleading. Is there a simple way to change th

[Bug tree-optimization/91351] [9/10 Regression] -fstrict-enums generates incorrect code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91351 --- Comment #8 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #7) > --- a/gcc/tree.c > +++ b/gcc/tree.c > @@ -11926,7 +11926,7 @@ int_cst_value (const_tree x) > tree > signed_or_unsigned_type_for (int unsignedp, tree type) > { > -

[Bug ipa/91305] ICF compile-time issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91305 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/91377] New: (regression) ICE with non-static block scope constexpr, captured in lambda, used as template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91377 Bug ID: 91377 Summary: (regression) ICE with non-static block scope constexpr, captured in lambda, used as template parameter Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #19 from Rich Felker --- Re comment 17, non-prototype declarations might be error-prone, but they're valid C and necessary for certain usage cases. The motivation for making this error-by-default is that "implicit function declaration

[Bug bootstrap/91352] [10 Regression] Jobserver detection uses fcntl, which is not available on mingw-w64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91352 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Martin Liška -

[Bug tree-optimization/91351] [9/10 Regression] -fstrict-enums generates incorrect code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91351 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|marxin at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/91351] [9/10 Regression] -fstrict-enums generates incorrect code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91351 --- Comment #7 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3) > Switch lowering produces things like > > _6 = e_2(D) + 4294967285; > if (_6 > 2) > > for range checking, where _6 has type enum E, and VRP2 later takes advanta

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #18 from Rich Felker --- Just to clarify, an "implicit function declaration" is use of a token that could be an identifier as the operand of the function call operator (), with no declaration for the identifier in scope. A non-prototy

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #16) > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #15) > > OK, but the issue is similar: in both cases, the parameters/arguments are > > not checked, yielding undefi

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #16 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #15) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #14) > > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #13) > > > By "implicit function declarations", does this include

[Bug lto/91376] New: g++.dg/lto/pr90990 FAILs with gld 2.32.51

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376 Bug ID: 91376 Summary: g++.dg/lto/pr90990 FAILs with gld 2.32.51 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: lto

[Bug lto/91376] g++.dg/lto/pr90990 FAILs with gld 2.32.51

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91376 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #5 from Niels Möller --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > Why wouldn't you take unique_ptr&& instead of passing by value? Because passing unique_ptr (and other move-only types) by value seems to be the mainstream idiom

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 --- Comment #7 from Qiang --- Sorry to be a bother and thanks all of you. '-fsanitize=undefined' & '-fwrapv' are new item to me. '-fsanitize=undefined' is helpful to me to find out the similar issue in our code. '-fwrapv' may hide other potential

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #15 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #14) > (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #13) > > By "implicit function declarations", does this include K&R style > > declarations? > > No, there is nothi

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #14 from Florian Weimer --- (In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #13) > By "implicit function declarations", does this include K&R style > declarations? No, there is nothing implicit about them. > I've found out a few days ago

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- And Bugzilla asks you to read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs before creating a new bug, and that page asks you to try -fsanitize=undefined to see if your code is undefined. If you'd done that you'd have been told

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41423 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- I'm not aware of an existing one that would be suitable.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91358 --- Comment #2 from Antony Polukhin --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #1) > So, if you've seen a real problem somewhere (and not just valgrind > complaining about uninitialized registers in comparisons), > then you've reduced the testcas

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 --- Comment #13 from Vincent Lefèvre --- By "implicit function declarations", does this include K&R style declarations? I've found out a few days ago that GMP still uses K&R style declarations, and that's in a configure script. The issue is that

[Bug target/90991] [9/10 Regression] _mm_loadu_ps instrinsic translates to vmovaps in combination with _mm512_insertf32x4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/90991] [9/10 Regression] _mm_loadu_ps instrinsic translates to vmovaps in combination with _mm512_insertf32x4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90991 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kretz at kde dot org --- Comment #8 from

[Bug target/91142] [9 Regression] Incorrect aligned vector load instruction emitted because of vinserti32x4 elision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91142 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug lto/91375] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on valid code in subbinfo_with_vtable_at_offset at ipa-devirt.c:2760 since r256685

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91375 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/91375] New: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on valid code in subbinfo_with_vtable_at_offset at ipa-devirt.c:2760 since r256685

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91375 Bug ID: 91375 Summary: [8/9/10 Regression] ICE on valid code in subbinfo_with_vtable_at_offset at ipa-devirt.c:2760 since r256685 Product: gcc Version: 10.0

[Bug target/91142] [9 Regression] Incorrect aligned vector load instruction emitted because of vinserti32x4 elision

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91142 Martin Kronbichler changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kronbichler.martin at gmail dot co

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Niels Möller from comment #2) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > > The ABI dictates the calling conventions and there's certainly nothing that > > libstdc++ can do about it. > > My

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 --- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse --- Note that gcc (like clang) provides a tool to help you detect this kind of issue. If you compile with -fsanitize=undefined, then at runtime you will see: main.c:7:20: runtime error: signed integer overflow: 631

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- >If GCC need to follow rule, it should not be relative to GCC optimization. So there are two rules here getting involved. One is the implicit promoting to int. The second rule is that signed integer overfl

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- >but it's a burden that tool need user to explicitly cast it too follow the >implicit rule, isn't it? Except that is what the language says. It is like saying a natural language rules dont need to be follo

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On August 5, 2019 9:53:48 PM GMT+02:00, "matz at gcc dot gnu.org" wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90796 > >--- Comment #7 from Michael Matz --- >Created attachment 46675 > -

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91356 --- Comment #2 from Niels Möller --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > The ABI dictates the calling conventions and there's certainly nothing that > libstdc++ can do about it. My impression was that C++ ABI is under the control of

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91373 --- Comment #2 from Qiang --- Hi Andrew, Thank your for your quickly reply. I still have some questions about this issue. It's very natural to write down the following code. All arguments are declared with 'U16', and the return type is 'U32'.