[Bug c++/97452] [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume() when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/97398] Enhancement request: Warning when multiply assigning to same struct field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398 --- Comment #3 from Ulrich Windl --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > would this go under one of the existing -Wunused flags, or a new one? I think it's a case of being an unused value set to a variable in general, but more specific

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 97428, which changed state. Bug 97428 Summary: -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:429ad0bb0d3dc77e44f95620341da4938d49168e commit r11-3966-g429ad0bb0d3dc77e44f95620341da4938d49168e Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug bootstrap/97451] [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug sanitizer/96307] [10/11 Regression] ICE in sanopt on riscv64 since r11-2283-g2ca1b6d009b194286c3ec91f9c51cc6b0a475458

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96307 Kito Cheng changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P4 |P3 --- Comment #5 from Kito Cheng --- Patc

How to fix GCC Upgrade issues(which always disappeared by add some trace prints)?

Hello GCC experts, Anyone can guide us to fix this issue on GCC v9.3? Our products used ARM64 target cross-compile GCC v6.5 before. In recent weeks, we upgrade it to GCC v9.3 by company request. However, we met some strange problems, such as 1. Linux eMMC dr

[Bug c++/97453] New: Implement CWG issue 2303

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97453 Bug ID: 97453 Summary: Implement CWG issue 2303 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: u

[Bug c++/93107] unable to deduce initializer_list from function template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93107 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/97452] New: [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume() when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97452 Bug ID: 97452 Summary: [coroutines] incorrect sequencing of await_resume() when multiple co_await expressions occur in a single statement Product: gcc Version: un

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 --- Comment #6 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > > while the lack of cross-lane shuffles in AVX2 requires a > > .L3: > vmovupd (%rsi,%rax), %xmm5 > vmovupd 32(%rsi,%rax), %xmm6 > vinsertf1

[Bug tree-optimization/97428] -O3 is great for basic AoSoA packing of complex arrays, but horrible one step above the basic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97428 --- Comment #5 from Michael_S --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > I have a fix that, with -mavx512f generates just > > .L3: > vmovupd (%rcx,%rax), %zmm0 > vpermpd (%rsi,%rax), %zmm1, %zmm2 > vpermpd %zmm0,

[Bug c++/97358] [8/9/10 Regression] ICE while building firefox since r8-2720

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97358 Richard Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #12 from John David Anglin --- Created attachment 49382 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49382&action=edit .s file generated with stage3 compiler File 1 position looks similar to the example in binutils/26740.

[Bug c++/95675] [8/9/10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in build_over_call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95675 --- Comment #6 from Marek Polacek --- Comment 4 test started with r240845.

[Bug fortran/97039] -fbounds-check misses violation with slice of array but not an element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97039 --- Comment #2 from Anthony M de Beus --- Clarification for anyone confused, "correct" results by a fortran compiler with bounds-checking enabled would include finding/checking incorrect bounds in (deliberately) incorrect fortran code given in th

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard --- I don't understand why the .debug sections are compared in this case. But if they are then the diff comes from this gas issue: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26740 Even though unused gas -

[Bug c++/96241] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in verify_ctor_sanity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek

[Bug c++/95942] [11 regression] offsetof on an array: error: 'e' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95942 Sergei Trofimovich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||slyfox at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug bootstrap/97451] [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #10 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-10-15 4:35 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 > > --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Those are debug sections. So contrib/c

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Those are debug sections. So contrib/compare-debug should be stripping them. Or is this non-debug bootstrap where either both stage2 and stage3 are built with -g or none of them?

[Bug other/97417] RISC-V Unnecessary andi instruction when loading volatile bool

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97417 Jim Wilson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilson at gcc dot gnu.org Statu

[Bug bootstrap/97451] [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 --- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu --- The problem is triggered by missing config/bootstrap-debug.mk. But cccS9GKD.s is is odd.

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #8 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-10-15 4:18 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Adde

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mark at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 f

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #6 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2020-10-15 3:58 p.m., jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections... It looks like the .s file name is in object: dave@atlas:~/

[Bug target/18469] configure incorrectly defines gid_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #6 from Jonathan W

[Bug bootstrap/97451] New: [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97451 Bug ID: 97451 Summary: [11 Regression] r11-3959 failed --with-build-config=bootstrap-cet Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/97398] Enhancement request: Warning when multiply assigning to same struct field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97398 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/18469] configure incorrectly defines gid_t

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18469 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, how do they differ? The comparison should be ignoring debug sections...

[Bug c++/97450] New: [concepts] Bogus errors during constraint normalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97450 Bug ID: 97450 Summary: [concepts] Bogus errors during constraint normalization Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priorit

[Bug bootstrap/97355] [11 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97355 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/97402] Value of dependent partial-concept-id is not usable in a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97402 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 79686, which changed state. Bug 79686 Summary: Variadic template expansion into concept with leading parameters https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug c++/79686] Variadic template expansion into concept with leading parameters

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79686 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

[Bug c++/66834] [concepts] variadic concepts and DR 1430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66834 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anthony.ajw at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/97419] crash in decl_as_string(TFF_DECL_SPECIFIERS | TFF_CHASE_TYPEDEF) from plugin using std::declval()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97419 --- Comment #6 from Steve Fink --- The crash still happens with gcc 10.2.0.

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Ville Voutilainen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/80635] [8/9/10/11 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80635 Chris Uzdavinis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cuzdav at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/95844] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_warn_deprecated_use)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/97426] [11 regression] new test case gcc.dg/ipa/modref-1.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97426 --- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- g:10744da3452dac48cfa54d4480c269aac56421fa, r11-3909 The above partly fixes this but leaves at least one error: make -k check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="tree-ssa.exp=gcc.dg/tree-ssa/modref-4.c" FAIL: gcc

[Bug c++/95844] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_warn_deprecated_use)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3ee94724686b82556c07b4d33821ae973eb9aba commit r11-3958-gf3ee94724686b82556c07b4d33821ae973eb9aba Author: Jason Merrill Date: Th

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Known to fail|

[Bug libstdc++/97449] [11 Regression] libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug libstdc++/97415] Invalid pointer comparison in stringbuf::str() (reported by pointer-compare AddressSanitizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- Not even an alternative SELECT_CC_MODE; just add an argument to it, giving the original mode? We already have that in combine, so we can trivially pass it. Will that work for x86 here?

[Bug c++/95844] [11 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in cp_warn_deprecated_use)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95844 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/97449] New: libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97449 Bug ID: 97449 Summary: libstdc++ cannot be compiled with clang after 3427e31331677ca826c5588c87924214f7e5c54b Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug c++/95942] [11 regression] offsetof on an array: error: 'e' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95942 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|NEW

[Bug c++/85901] Error message contains "#'offset_type' not supported by simple_type_specifier#)#'offset_type' not supported by direct_abstract_declarator#"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85901 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/97406] Truncated pointer-to-member type in concept satisfaction error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97406 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/96974] [10/11 Regression] ICE in vect_get_vector_types_for_stmt compiling for SVE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96974 Stam Markianos-Wright changed: What|Removed |Added Host||x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug c++/95808] Can mismatch non-array new/delete with array new/delete during constant evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95808 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug libstdc++/97415] Invalid pointer comparison in stringbuf::str() (reported by pointer-compare AddressSanitizer)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97415 --- Comment #5 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > Fixed on trunk so far. I'm undecided whether it needs to be backported. > Although the comparison with null is formally unspecified, I think all the > compilers

[Bug sanitizer/97416] pointer-compare sanitizer + use-after-return: CHECK failed: /build/gcc/src/gcc/libsanitizer/asan/asan_thread.cpp:369 "((bottom)) != (0)" (0x0, 0x0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97416 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug sanitizer/97414] AddressSanitizer CHECK failed: detect_stack_use_after_return and detect_invalid_pointer_pairs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97414 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-15 Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c/97448] New: Unneccessary stack frame when using stack protector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97448 Bug ID: 97448 Summary: Unneccessary stack frame when using stack protector Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- I don't think it is really possible, because there is nothing magic about the operands of the comparison, it can be done in both CCmode or CCCmode. The problem is that during simplification combiner takes th

[Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 --- Comment #6 from Christophe Leroy --- Sorry, the above command is for another problem I'm about to report. The command in question in this bug report is: powerpc64-linux-gcc -Wp,-MMD,arch/powerpc/kernel/.setup-common.o.d -nostdinc -isystem

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool --- So is that something than can/should be improved in ix86_cc_mode?

[Bug c/97447] During IPA pass: modref: ICE on gcc.dg/atomic/pr65345-4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97447 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Sta

[Bug c/97172] [11 Regression] ICE: tree code ‘ssa_name’ is not supported in LTO streams since r11-3303-g6450f07388f9fe57

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97172 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vvinayag at arm dot com --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 --- Comment #5 from Christophe Leroy --- GCC version with the BUG: Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc-10.1.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/powerpc64-linux-gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/opt/gcc-10.1.0-nolibc/powerpc64-linux/bin/../libexec/gc

[Bug c++/70248] constexpr initialization with unspecified equality expression accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70248 --- Comment #9 from Marek Polacek --- *** Bug 85474 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/85474] unspecified string literal comparison accepted in constexpr context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85474 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 85474, which changed state. Bug 85474 Summary: unspecified string literal comparison accepted in constexpr context https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85474 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Even if it is just a few insns, if it is larger than the function call, the caller might already trigger threshold of how much it can be enlarged by inlining. If this bugreport would come with the requested d

[Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug c++/97446] gcc accepts an unnamed struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97446 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Just like PR 97401. Please try to remember that diagnostics are not required for errors in uninstantiated templates, so it's not a bug.

[Bug c/97447] New: During IPA pass: modref: ICE on gcc.dg/atomic/pr65345-4.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97447 Bug ID: 97447 Summary: During IPA pass: modref: ICE on gcc.dg/atomic/pr65345-4.c Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- alternatively use inline w/o static to get C99 inline semantics (you have to provide a single out of line copy yourself then via the appropriate declaration)

[Bug c++/97446] gcc accepts an unnamed struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97446 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/97446] New: gcc accepts an unnamed struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97446 Bug ID: 97446 Summary: gcc accepts an unnamed struct Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assign

[Bug target/97431] [SH] Python crashes with 'Segmentation fault with -finline-small-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431 --- Comment #7 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Created attachment 49380 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49380&action=edit Archive containing C source, preprocessed source as well as assembly and object output I have creat

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #10) > Here's elf32-arc.i creduced. > > a; > b(); > c() { > void *d; > if (d == b && e()) is that actually allowed? if (d == b) is void * == (void * ()) I w

[Bug c++/96241] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in verify_ctor_sanity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/97430] [10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in verify_ctor_sanity, at cp/constexpr.c:3884

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97430 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/96241] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in verify_ctor_sanity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96241 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jfrech.bugzilla at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug target/97431] [SH] Python crashes with 'Segmentation fault with -finline-small-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431 --- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #5) So the difference seems to be only the -fPIC option? Can you get the preprocessed .i file with -save-temps ?

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5) > Trying 7 -> 9: > 7: r97:SI=0x2a > 9: {flags:CCC=cmp(r97:SI+r98:SI,r97:SI);r99:SI=r97:SI+r98:SI;} > REG_DEAD r98:SI > REG_DEAD r97:SI > Fa

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- I forgot to add: subtract immediate is the same as add immediate for us, we don't change the sense of the carry bit to a "borrow bit" (and instead, we have a subtract-from-immediate). But this doesn't c

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool --- Trying 7 -> 9: 7: r97:SI=0x2a 9: {flags:CCC=cmp(r97:SI+r98:SI,r97:SI);r99:SI=r97:SI+r98:SI;} REG_DEAD r98:SI REG_DEAD r97:SI Failed to match this instruction: (parallel [ (set

[Bug target/97431] [SH] Python crashes with 'Segmentation fault with -finline-small-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431 --- Comment #5 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #4) > Just to point out the obvious, r13 is never initialized nor referenced by > anything else throughout the function. What are the compiler options? One add

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #4 from fdlbxtqi --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > I don't see anything undesirable on that. The 0 aka %rax is used in 7 > different instructions later on besides the move, so either we just clear > %ecx (can't use xo

[Bug c/97445] Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c/97445] New: Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97445 Bug ID: 97445 Summary: Some fonctions marked static inline in Linux kernel are not inlined Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/97431] [SH] Python crashes with 'Segmentation fault with -finline-small-functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97431 Oleg Endo changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/97436] [nvptx] Remove -m32 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97436 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug c++/71424] std::initializer_list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71424 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug target/97436] [nvptx] Remove -m32 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97436 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:34af17c0164f3138df094b144c7f74c2d1805444 commit r11-3953-g34af17c0164f3138df094b144c7f74c2d1805444 Author: Tom de Vries Date: Thu

[Bug target/97444] New: [nvptx] stack atomics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97444 Bug ID: 97444 Summary: [nvptx] stack atomics Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: target Assign

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- And fwprop that perhaps wouldn't "simplify" them that much punts on these because the instructions are multiple sets. It is unclear why, I mean, sure, it can't be adding REG_EQUAL notes in that case, but oth

[Bug target/97437] builtins subcarry and addcarry still not generate the right code. Not get optimized to immediate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97437 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Anyway, #include void foo (unsigned int a[4], unsigned int b[4]) { unsigned char carry = 0; carry = _addcarry_u32 (carry, 42, b[0], &a[0]); carry = _addcarry_u32 (carry, b[1], 43, &a[1]); carry = _a

[Bug c++/97438] [accepts-invalid] coroutines accepts prmomise type with both return_value() and return_void()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97438 --- Comment #2 from Avi Kivity --- Created attachment 49379 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49379&action=edit test case

[Bug tree-optimization/97360] [11 Regression] ICE in range_on_exit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97360 --- Comment #10 from Alan Modra --- Here's elf32-arc.i creduced. a; b(); c() { void *d; if (d == b && e()) d = a; return d; }

[Bug c++/97438] [accepts-invalid] coroutines accepts prmomise type with both return_value() and return_void()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97438 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iains at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

  1   2   >