[Bug fortran/92996] ICE in gfc_conv_array_constructor_expr, at fortran/trans-expr.c:7590

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92996 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/93022] New: [ARM, AArch32, NEON] Missing 'vld1_s16_x3' intrinsic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93022 Bug ID: 93022 Summary: [ARM, AArch32, NEON] Missing 'vld1_s16_x3' intrinsic Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/92980] [miss optimization]redundant load missed by fre.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92980 --- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > But that is not true any more. So I think this optimization can be removed > as it is too early. Just double check the above testcase and the C++ > testcase (g++

[Bug analyzer/58237] gcc fails to detect obvious resource leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Patch committed to dmalcolm/analyzer branch: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-12/msg01425.html Ought to be live on godbolt.org within the next 24 hours.

[Bug target/92905] [10 Regression] Spills float-int union to memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/92974] diagnostic missing source information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92974 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/92990] INVALID code with NULLIFY – partially misleading error message "If bounds remapping is specified at (1), the pointer target shall not be NULL"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92990 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P5 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug target/92905] [10 Regression] Spills float-int union to memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92905 --- Comment #6 from Vladimir Makarov --- Author: vmakarov Date: Thu Dec 19 21:59:47 2019 New Revision: 279596 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279596&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-12-19 Vladimir Makarov PR target/92905 * lr

[Bug c++/92974] diagnostic missing source information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92974 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- We have a good location when processing the template: (gdb) p loc $4 = (const op_location_t &) @0x7fffc3d0: {m_operator_loc = 0, m_combined_loc = 2147483648} (gdb) p loc.m_combined_loc $5 = 2147483648 (

[Bug c++/92974] diagnostic missing source information

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92974 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug inline-asm/93021] SP Clobber change prevents compilation of some bootloaders and operating systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93021 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- >When a bootloader transfers control to an application, there is no context to >be saved Yes that is correct but the way it is currently implemented in Adafruit Metro M4 Express is incorrect. It changes the

[Bug inline-asm/93021] SP Clobber change prevents compilation of some bootloaders and operating systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93021 --- Comment #3 from Ron Sutton --- When a bootloader transfers control to an application, there is no context to be saved; a new context is being created and the old one discarded. Incidentally, this bug also impacts compilation of Adafruit's Mi

[Bug c++/89062] class template argument deduction failure with parentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89062 S. Davis Herring changed: What|Removed |Added CC||herring at lanl dot gov --- Comment #

[Bug inline-asm/93021] SP Clobber change prevents compilation of some bootloaders and operating systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93021 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I looked into uf2-samdx1 and when it sets the SP, it is really really bad idea because it does not copy the current stack frames and would mess up GCC knownledge of the current stack. So YES the error is stil

[Bug analyzer/58237] gcc fails to detect obvious resource leaks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58237 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug inline-asm/93021] SP Clobber change prevents compilation of some bootloaders and operating systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93021 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug regression/93009] AVX512 FMA - wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > It is called fma but it does not have to do the fused multiple add. > For scalar types, you should use std::fma . BUT NOTE on targets where FMA > does not exist,

[Bug inline-asm/93021] New: SP Clobber change prevents compilation of some bootloaders and operating systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93021 Bug ID: 93021 Summary: SP Clobber change prevents compilation of some bootloaders and operating systems Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug regression/93009] AVX512 FMA - wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/92392] -Wignored-qualifiers points to wrong location and doesn't mention which qualifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92392 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug libstdc++/91620] std::[forward_]list::remove_if/unique should respect to DR 526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91620 François Dumont changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/91856] std::list::remove(const T& value) is broken with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG when value is a reference inside the list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91856 François Dumont changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug go/93020] New: Final patches to build gcc-10 on GNU/Hurd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93020 Bug ID: 93020 Summary: Final patches to build gcc-10 on GNU/Hurd Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: go

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- >For input x=-2^31 y=-1, the result is expected to be 0. NO. The result is undefined as I mentioned in comment #2 and #3. If you want it defined, then check y == -1 && y != 0 before doing the % operations.

[Bug ipa/93015] [10 Regression] Segmentation fault (ipcp_store_vr_results(void))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93015 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug driver/93019] New: memory leak in gcc -O2 reported by Valgrind

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93019 Bug ID: 93019 Summary: memory leak in gcc -O2 reported by Valgrind Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: driver

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |tree-optimization Target Milestone|8.4

[Bug c++/93018] Zero initialization not occurring for empty struct in member union when converting constructor is used with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93018 --- Comment #1 from John Drouhard --- I forgot to mention that changing the optimization level to -O3 appears to "fix" baz2, and it correctly zero-initializes the empty struct in the union.

[Bug c++/92964] order of base class members generates vastly different code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92964 --- Comment #1 from John Drouhard --- I opened a separate bug report for the second issue I discussed in this one. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93018

[Bug c++/93018] New: Zero initialization not occurring for empty struct in member union when converting constructor is used with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93018 Bug ID: 93018 Summary: Zero initialization not occurring for empty struct in member union when converting constructor is used with -O2 Product: gcc Version: 9.2.1

[Bug target/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0 |powerpc-*-*-* Component|tree-opt

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I thought we declared INT_MIN /-1 as undefined and also INT_MIN % -1 undefined? There is another PR about that. I think even a defect report against the C standard too.

[Bug tree-optimization/93013] PPC: optimization around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/93017] New: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-1.c scan-tree-dump graphite "tiled"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93017 Bug ID: 93017 Summary: FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/interchange-1.c scan-tree-dump graphite "tiled" Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/92995] -Wmisleading-indentation and multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92995 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/92993] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE in maybe_canonicalize_comparison_1, at fold-const.c:8845

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92993 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/93016] erroneous new (nothrow_t) still throws an exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93016 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/93012] PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant generation (upper = lower)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93012 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/92635] __builtin_finited{32,64,128} should inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92635 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/92656] The zero_extend insn can't be eliminated in the combine pass

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92656 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- Trying 104 -> 105: 104: r125:SI=zero_extend(r101:SI#0) REG_DEAD r101:SI 105: r127:SI={(r100:SI!=0)?r125:SI:r79:SI} REG_DEAD r125:SI REG_DEAD r100:SI REG_DEAD r79:SI Failed to

[Bug c++/93016] New: erroneous new (nothrow_t) still throws an exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93016 Bug ID: 93016 Summary: erroneous new (nothrow_t) still throws an exception Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug target/93002] while(i--) optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002 --- Comment #7 from getchar_gnu at hotmail dot com --- Actually for `while (i--) sink=i;` with knowledge that `i!=0` it's valid to compile as .L11: subl$1, %edi movl%edi, sink(%rip) jne .L11 ret whic

[Bug regression/93009] AVX512 FMA - wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/93015] New: Segmentation fault (ipcp_store_vr_results(void))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93015 Bug ID: 93015 Summary: Segmentation fault (ipcp_store_vr_results(void)) Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/93011] PowerPC GCC has warning that aggregate alignment changed in GCC 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93011 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |SUSPENDED --- Comment #3 from Seghe

[Bug c++/93014] New: [9/10 Regression] ICE when initialising vector references with -flax-vector-conversions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93014 Bug ID: 93014 Summary: [9/10 Regression] ICE when initialising vector references with -flax-vector-conversions Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Ke

[Bug tree-optimization/93010] Wrong optimization: provenance affects comparison of saved bits of addresses of dead auto variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93010 --- Comment #1 from Alexander Cherepanov --- clang bug -- https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=44342 There is a second example there, with memcpy/memcmp, but it doesn't trigger the bug in gcc so not pasting it here. (Generally gcc seems to be m

[Bug rtl-optimization/34522] inefficient code for long long multiply when only low bits are needed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34522 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|| --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely

[Bug c++/93013] New: PPC: optimization leads around modulo leads to incorrect result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93013 Bug ID: 93013 Summary: PPC: optimization leads around modulo leads to incorrect result Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/40389] optimizer bug (possibly)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Known to w

[Bug tree-optimization/40421] [4.5 Regression] Revision 148352 failed 416.gamess in SPEC CPU 2006

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40421 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug c++/93012] New: PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant generation (upper = lower)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93012 Bug ID: 93012 Summary: PPC: inefficient 64-bit constant generation (upper = lower) Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug target/93011] PowerPC GCC has warning that aggregate alignment changed in GCC 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93011 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/69497] ICE in gfc_free_namespace, at fortran/symbol.c:3701

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69497 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #6) > Committing to svn+ssh://jvdeli...@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk ... > A gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/pr69497.f90 > M gcc/fortran/ChangeLog >

[Bug fortran/92896] [10 Regression] [DEC] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.c:1283

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896 --- Comment #6 from MarkEggleston --- This has been fixed, see comment 5. I do not have permission to changes the status so somebody that does will need to do so.

[Bug fortran/92896] [10 Regression] [DEC] ICE in reduce_unary, at fortran/arith.c:1283

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92896 --- Comment #5 from markeggleston at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: markeggleston Date: Thu Dec 19 15:13:25 2019 New Revision: 279583 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279583&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Prevent conversion of character data in array co

[Bug target/93011] PowerPC GCC has warning that aggregate alignment changed in GCC 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93011 --- Comment #1 from Bill Schmidt --- This is worth considering; but offhand I don't believe we should remove this until common distros that use GCC 4.8 or 4.9 as default are retired (RHEL 7 and SLES 12, for example, both use 4.8 as default and ar

[Bug rtl-optimization/70224] [5 regression] ICE: RTL flag check: CROSSING_JUMP_P used with unexpected rtx code 'insn' in relax_delay_slots, at reorg.c:3310

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70224 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- r234262 was related to this, but committed with the wrong PR number

[Bug libffi/70024] [5/6 Regression] libffi ABI change w/o SONAME bump

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70024 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- comment 8 was meant to be for PR 70224

[Bug tree-optimization/93010] New: Wrong optimization: provenance affects comparison of saved bits of addresses of dead auto variables

--- gcc x86-64 version: gcc (GCC) 10.0.0 20191219 (experimental) If "diff == 0" then "eq" should be 1.

[Bug target/93011] New: PowerPC GCC has warning that aggregate alignment changed in GCC 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93011 Bug ID: 93011 Summary: PowerPC GCC has warning that aggregate alignment changed in GCC 5 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/37558] [4.4 regression] rev 140120 changes the accessibility of a friend decl.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37558 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Fixed by r140424 (with wrong PR number)

[Bug c++/92907] noexcept does not consider "const" in member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92907 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/40866] [4.5 Regression] ICE in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:504

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40866 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- They belong to PR 48066

[Bug regression/93009] New: AVX512 FMA - wrong code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93009 Bug ID: 93009 Summary: AVX512 FMA - wrong code generation Product: gcc Version: 9.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: regression

[Bug fortran/56872] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Incorrect SUM evaluation, involving implied-do loop, with -ffrontend-optimize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56872 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- Commit r197610 had the wrong PR number 2013-04-08 Thomas Koenig PR fortran/56782 * frontend-passes.c (callback_reduction): Dont't do any simplification if ther

[Bug fortran/36582] Namelist I/O error: Bogus "Cannot match namelist object"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36582 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|| --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely

[Bug c++/36852] [4.3/4.4 Regression] Two dimensional array in template method argument list incorrectly interpreted.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36852 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- Comment 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 were meant to be for PR 36582

[Bug c++/92907] noexcept does not consider "const" in member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92907 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW CC|

[Bug c++/92907] noexcept does not consider "const" in member functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92907 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/92150] Partial specializations of class templates with class NTTP fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92150 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/92859] compiler treats enum type as an integer during overload resolution when a bit-field of this enum is considered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92859 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/83441] Null this captured in lambda in class variable initializer for templated classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83441 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/54367] [meta-bug] lambda expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54367 Bug 54367 depends on bug 64329, which changed state. Bug 64329 Summary: Crash when returning reference from lambda with deduced type https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug c++/64329] Crash when returning reference from lambda with deduced type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64329 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/52320] missing destructor call after thrown exception in initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0

[Bug c++/66139] destructor not called for members of partially constructed anonymous struct/array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/52320] missing destructor call after thrown exception in initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Known to work|

[Bug c++/57510] subobjects not destroyed when exception thrown during list-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.0 --- Comment #13 from Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/52320] missing destructor call after thrown exception in initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52320 --- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 19 14:07:22 2019 New Revision: 279577 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279577&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/52320 - EH cleanups for partially constructed arrays. This

[Bug c++/66139] destructor not called for members of partially constructed anonymous struct/array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66139 --- Comment #17 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 19 14:06:45 2019 New Revision: 279576 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279576&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/66139 - EH cleanups for partially constructed aggregates.

[Bug c++/57510] subobjects not destroyed when exception thrown during list-initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57510 --- Comment #12 from Jason Merrill --- Author: jason Date: Thu Dec 19 14:06:45 2019 New Revision: 279576 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279576&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/66139 - EH cleanups for partially constructed aggregates.

[Bug c++/93008] Need a way to make inlining heuristics ignore whether a function is inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/93008] New: Need a way to make inlining heuristics ignore whether a function is inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93008 Bug ID: 93008 Summary: Need a way to make inlining heuristics ignore whether a function is inline Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug tree-optimization/92980] [miss optimization]redundant load missed by fre.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92980 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #6) > New fail by removal > > unix/-m32: c-c++-common/restrict-2.c -Wc++-compat scan-tree-dump-times > lim2 "Moving statement" 11 > unix/-m32: c-c++-common/restrict-

[Bug rtl-optimization/93007] New: [10 regression] pr77698.c testcase fails due to block commoning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93007 Bug ID: 93007 Summary: [10 regression] pr77698.c testcase fails due to block commoning Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/93002] while(i--) optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 47525 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47525&action=edit gcc10-pr93002.patch Untested patch doing this the peephole2 way.

[Bug target/93006] Better code with a-- == 0 rather than --a == -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93006 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- But even bar is unnecessarily long: movla(%rip), %edx leal-1(%rdx), %eax cmpl$1, %edx movl%eax, a(%rip) movl%edi, %eax adcl%esi, %eax

[Bug target/93006] New: Better code with a-- == 0 rather than --a == -1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93006 Bug ID: 93006 Summary: Better code with a-- == 0 rather than --a == -1 Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ta

[Bug c++/93005] Redundant NEON loads/stores from stack are not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005 Marc Glisse changed: What|Removed |Added Target||arm-linux-gnueabihf Status|UNC

[Bug c++/93005] New: Redundant NEON loads/stores from stack are not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93005 Bug ID: 93005 Summary: Redundant NEON loads/stores from stack are not eliminated Product: gcc Version: 8.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/92495] spaceship operator requires public member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92495 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- That's a separate bug, specifically PR 92496 (which is already fixed).

[Bug fortran/92977] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_atomic, at fortran/trans-openmp.c:3526

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92977 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Dec 19 10:08:06 2019 New Revision: 279567 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=279567&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR fortran/92977 * frontend-passes.c (call_external_blas):

[Bug libstdc++/92927] Bootstrap failed with CXXFLAGS="-O0"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92927 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #0) > It seems to happen after r277588. Thanks for tracking down the revision that caused it. The problem is that the functions are 'constexpr' for C++14 mode (and th

[Bug target/93002] while(i--) optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002 --- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #4) > > Maybe we can introduce the above insn as insn_and_split pattern that is > later split to CCmode insns? cmpelim pass will then be able to synthesize > the insn. Ah

[Bug target/93002] while(i--) optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002 --- Comment #4 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > The question is where to do that. Is that something ivopts should do > (perhaps based on some rtl cost or whatever), or shall it be done during > expansion (unfort

[Bug target/93002] while(i--) optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93002 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- The peephole2, if we go that way, would need to change something like: (insn 8 7 10 3 (parallel [ (set (reg/v:SI 0 ax [orig:82 i ] [82]) (plus:SI (reg/v:SI 0 ax [orig:82 i ] [82])

  1   2   >