[Bug tree-optimization/98655] New: ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: integral result type precision does not match field size of 'bit_field_ref')

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98655 Bug ID: 98655 Summary: ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: integral result type precision does not match field size of 'bit_field_ref') Product: gcc Version: 11.0

[Bug target/95905] Failure to optimize _mm_unpacklo_epi8 with 0 as right operand to _mm_cvtepu8_epi16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95905 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b668a06e37f72fd96bacd6769990ec97dac4ac6d commit r11-6628-gb668a06e37f72fd96bacd6769990ec97dac4ac6d Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: We

[Bug target/98647] Failure to optimize out convertion from float to vector type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98647 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/93390] AARCH64: FP move costs needs improvements for ThunderX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93390 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/98649] Trivial jump table not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98649 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end Severity|normal

[Bug other/98652] unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652 --- Comment #3 from ashimida --- *** Bug 98654 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug other/98654] unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98654 ashimida changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/98652] unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652 --- Comment #2 from ashimida --- *** Bug 98653 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug other/98653] unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98653 ashimida changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/98652] unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652 --- Comment #1 from ashimida --- *** Bug 98651 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug other/98651] unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98651 ashimida changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/98654] New: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98654 Bug ID: 98654 Summary: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194 Product: gcc Version: new-ra Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug other/98653] New: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98653 Bug ID: 98653 Summary: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194 Product: gcc Version: new-ra Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug other/98652] New: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98652 Bug ID: 98652 Summary: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194 Product: gcc Version: new-ra Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug other/98651] New: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98651 Bug ID: 98651 Summary: unused code found in function analyze_functions:1194 Product: gcc Version: new-ra Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug demangler/98650] New: Issue within gdb with debugging symbols of telegram-desktop under Debian 10 GNU/Linux amd64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98650 Bug ID: 98650 Summary: Issue within gdb with debugging symbols of telegram-desktop under Debian 10 GNU/Linux amd64 Product: gcc Version: 8.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/98471] libstdc++ fails to build with clang on windows because of filesystem bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98471 --- Comment #1 from cqwrteur --- Is this possible to fix? Is that anything wrong with the patch I provided?

[Bug tree-optimization/14721] jump optimization involving a sibling call within a jump table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14721 Peter Dimov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pdimov at gmail dot com --- Comment #5 fro

[Bug c++/98649] New: Trivial jump table not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98649 Bug ID: 98649 Summary: Trivial jump table not eliminated Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ As

[Bug c++/63707] Brace initialization of array sometimes fails if no copy constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/63707] Brace initialization of array sometimes fails if no copy constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/98647] Failure to optimize out convertion from float to vector type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98647 --- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier --- I have just looked at the ABI and it just says that floats/doubles are passed in SSE registers, but does not seem to explicitly specify whether the upper bits are cleared or not (it explicitly specifies that

[Bug target/98648] Failure to optimize out no-op vector operation using andnot

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98648 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski -

[Bug target/98647] Failure to optimize out convertion from float to vector type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98647 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski -

[Bug target/98648] New: Failure to optimize out no-op vector operation using andnot

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98648 Bug ID: 98648 Summary: Failure to optimize out no-op vector operation using andnot Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug target/98647] New: Failure to optimize out convertion from float to vector type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98647 Bug ID: 98647 Summary: Failure to optimize out convertion from float to vector type Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/98646] [11 Regression] A static_cast confuses -Wnonnull, causing false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 See Also|

[Bug testsuite/98643] [11 regression] r11-6615 causes failure in gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-extract- char.p7.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98643 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-01-13 Status|UNCON

[Bug testsuite/98643] [11 regression] r11-6615 causes failure in gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-extract- char.p7.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98643 --- Comment #1 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Here's a context diff seurer@genoa:~/gcc/git/build/gcc-test$ diff -c fold-vec-extract-char.p7.s.r11-6614 fold-vec-extract-char.p7.s.r11-6615 *** fold-vec-extract-char.p7.s.r11-6614 Tue Jan 12 14:

[Bug tree-optimization/96674] Failure to optimize combination of comparisons to dec+compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/63707] Brace initialization of array sometimes fails if no copy constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63707 Peter Dimov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pdimov at gmail dot com --- Comment #14 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/96674] Failure to optimize combination of comparisons to dec+compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674 --- Comment #4 from Gabriel Ravier --- I'd assume those are for older test cases: __attribute__((noipa)) makes more sense (at least to me) considering it's made specifically to prevent inter-procedural optimization (which __attribute__((noinline)

[Bug c++/98645] C++ modules support does not work on PowerPC with IEEE 128-bit long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98645 --- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Michael Meissner from comment #0) > I am tuning up the final patches for providing support to enable the PowerPC > server compilers to change the default long double from using the IBM > 128

[Bug analyzer/98599] fatal error: Cgraph edge statement index out of range with -Os -flto -fanalyzer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98599 --- Comment #6 from David Malcolm --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5) > @David: Can you really reproduce that on x86_64-linux-gnu (I can't for some > reason)? Yes (with current master e.g. cfaaa6a1ca744c1a93fa08a3e7ab2a821383cac1), usi

[Bug tree-optimization/96674] Failure to optimize combination of comparisons to dec+compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96674 --- Comment #3 from Eugene Rozenfeld --- Both are used but it looks like __attribute__((noinline)) is used more frequently. Under gcc/testsuite there are 1537 instances of __attribute__((noipa)) and 3794 instances of __attribute__((noinline)).

[Bug c++/98646] New: A static_cast confuses -Wnonnull, causing false positives

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98646 Bug ID: 98646 Summary: A static_cast confuses -Wnonnull, causing false positives Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c++/98645] C++ modules support does not work on PowerPC with IEEE 128-bit long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98645 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/98645] New: C++ modules support does not work on PowerPC with IEEE 128-bit long double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98645 Bug ID: 98645 Summary: C++ modules support does not work on PowerPC with IEEE 128-bit long double Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/93340] [8/9/10/11 Regression] ICE in check_constant_initializer, at fortran/trans-decl.c:5450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93340 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Tentative patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2021-January/055589.html

[Bug c/98592] [11 Regression] ICE in gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p while formatting a MEM_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98592 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug go/98610] syscall.TestUnshareUidGidMapping sporadically fails on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98610 Ian Lance Taylor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug go/98610] syscall.TestUnshareUidGidMapping sporadically fails on powerpc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98610 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Ian Lance Taylor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfaaa6a1ca744c1a93fa08a3e7ab2a821383cac1 commit r11-6622-gcfaaa6a1ca744c1a93fa08a3e7ab2a821383cac1 Author: Paul E. Murphy Date:

[Bug c++/98642] [10/11 Regression] wrong "use of deleted function" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfir

[Bug c++/98644] New: [concepts] ICE in satisfaction_value, at cp/constraint.cc:2825

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98644 Bug ID: 98644 Summary: [concepts] ICE in satisfaction_value, at cp/constraint.cc:2825 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/96691] Failure to optimize bitwise not+or+xor with constants to and+xor with bitwise not-ed constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96691 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug testsuite/98643] New: [11 regression] r11-6615 causes failure in gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-extract- char.p7.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98643 Bug ID: 98643 Summary: [11 regression] r11-6615 causes failure in gcc.target/powerpc/fold-vec-extract- char.p7.c Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/98597] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- This is not a proper fix, you avoid the ICEs perhaps, but keep printing completely bogus output for many cases.

[Bug c/98592] [11 Regression] ICE in gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p while formatting a MEM_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98592 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a9cfad2de92f2d65585774acb524b3fa17621b5 commit r11-6621-g5a9cfad2de92f2d65585774acb524b3fa17621b5 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug tree-optimization/98597] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5a9cfad2de92f2d65585774acb524b3fa17621b5 commit r11-6621-g5a9cfad2de92f2d65585774acb524b3fa17621b5 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug c++/98642] [10/11 Regression] wrong "use of deleted function" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642 --- Comment #1 from Marek Polacek --- $ ./cc1plus -quiet 98642.C 98642.C: In instantiation of ‘C& bar() [with C = const foo]’: 98642.C:19:25: required from here 98642.C:13:12: error: use of deleted function ‘base::base(base&&)’ 13 | static

[Bug c++/98642] [10/11 Regression] wrong "use of deleted function" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong "use of deleted |[10/11 Regression] wrong

[Bug c++/98642] New: wrong "use of deleted function" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98642 Bug ID: 98642 Summary: wrong "use of deleted function" error Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug libstdc++/98605] [8/9/10 Regression] clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- The original report said it was with 4.0.0

[Bug c/98627] GCC emits unaligned memory access instructions causing address error exceptions with the 68000 architecture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98627 --- Comment #8 from Fredrik Noring --- Thanks, Mikael. Users evidently take whatever m68k-* GCC they have at hand and so 68000-projects therefore must have a special configure test to verify that -march=68000 isn't broken with the user's choice o

[Bug tree-optimization/98597] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Also, it seems the shortcut for MEM_REF [&var, 0] is only correct if the types of var and MEM_REF are compatible, if I have say struct S { int a, int b; } var; then if MEM[&var, 0] has int type, then it shoul

[Bug libstdc++/98605] [8/9/10 Regression] clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605 --- Comment #6 from Matheus Izvekov --- What clang-tidy version? From the date of the commit, it was probably no older than 6, probably 4 or 5. If that is too old and probably considered unsupported, I think that is fine. But even if in the end

[Bug tree-optimization/98640] [10/11 Regression] GCC produces incorrect code with -O1 and higher since r10-2711-g3ed01d5408045d80

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98640 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/98597] [11 Regression] ICE in print_mem_ref since r11-6508-gabb1b6058c09a7c0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98597 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug bootstrap/98509] [11 Regression] BUGURL quotation problem in libcody

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98509 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug bootstrap/98414] [11 Regression] UBSAN bootstrap is broken: ubsan/ubsan_type_hash_itanium.cpp:162: undefined reference to `__dynamic_cast' since r11-6083-gb7dfc2074c78415d451eb34d1608016c80b1c41a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98414 Nathan Sidwell changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/96938] Failure to optimize bit-setting pattern when not using temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96938 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/98592] [11 Regression] ICE in gimple_canonical_types_compatible_p while formatting a MEM_REF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98592 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/98639] GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/98639] GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 --- Comment #5 from Arthur O'Dwyer --- Meh, I guess this is just an unintended (but conforming) consequence of the shifting C++17/20 rules. Jonathan links to https://twitter.com/wakomeup/status/1274778577087627267 as another example: // https://

[Bug middle-end/95848] missing -Wuninitialized passing structs by value (VOPS)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95848 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail|

[Bug c++/98639] GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 Mathias Stearn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redbeard0531 at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug c++/98641] Feature request: implement pointer alignment builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641 --- Comment #1 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- The component is marked as C++, but it would be good to have these in C as well.

[Bug c++/98641] New: Feature request: implement pointer alignment builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98641 Bug ID: 98641 Summary: Feature request: implement pointer alignment builtins Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/98640] New: GCC produces incorrect code with -O1 and higher

O1 driver.cpp && ./a.out 18128133247277979403 gcc version 11.0.0 20210112 (cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330)

[Bug c++/58993] incorrectly accept access of protected member method from derived class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58993 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org St

[Bug target/97875] suboptimal loop vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97875 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/97875] suboptimal loop vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97875 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Christophe Lyon : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25bef68902f42f414f99626cefb2d3df81de7dc8 commit r11-6616-g25bef68902f42f414f99626cefb2d3df81de7dc8 Author: Christophe Lyon Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/96938] Failure to optimize bit-setting pattern when not using temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96938 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Plus the less reduced testcase: void baz (char *f, int o, char v) { *f = (*f & ~(1 << o)) | (v << o); } On bar above, we match this during combine: Trying 10, 11 -> 13: 10: r96:SI=0xfffe 1

[Bug libstdc++/98384] [11 Regression] new test case 20_util/to_chars/long_double.cc in r11-6249 fails on powerpc64 BE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98384 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #7) > > --- Comment #6 from Patrick Palka --- > [...] > > Thanks for testing! Hmm, that execute failure is surprising. I wonder just > > how much we'

[Bug target/97969] [9/10/11 Regression][ARM/Thumb] Certain combo of codegen options leads to compilation infinite loop with growing memory use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969 --- Comment #18 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330 commit r11-6615-gcf2ac1c30af0fa783c8d72e527904dda5d8cc330 Author: Vladimir N. Makarov

[Bug c/98627] GCC emits unaligned memory access instructions causing address error exceptions with the 68000 architecture

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98627 --- Comment #7 from Mikael Pettersson --- The correct target to use in this case is m68k-elf.

[Bug libstdc++/98605] [8/9/10 Regression] clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- I can't reproduce the original error reported in PR 82481 anyway. Maybe clang-tidy got smarter (it doesn't show problems in system headers by default, which helps). Maybe we can just remove that code entir

[Bug tree-optimization/96938] Failure to optimize bit-setting pattern when not using temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96938 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug libstdc++/98605] [8/9/10 Regression] clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.5 Known to work|

[Bug libstdc++/98605] clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Doh, I missed out the actual commit hash. It was: commit d1e85aa999ab87009fa02a5261754fbaa69206f2

[Bug libstdc++/98605] clang-tidy error parsing on libstdc++-v3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98605 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Matheus Izvekov from comment #0) > This was caused by the following commit: > > ``` > commit 018813c8994b7dceab1b7d999e9c09654a22ef50 I can't identify that commit. The one in the GCC tree is:

[Bug c++/98639] GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Arthur O'Dwyer from comment #0) > I actually suspect that this behavior is related to C++20's paren-init for > aggregates; Yes, and the change to allow aggregates to have base classes. Derived

[Bug c++/98632] Warn about unspecified expression ordering for atomics with non-relaxed memory ordering.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98632 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic --- Comment #1 from Jonatha

[Bug target/97969] [9/10/11 Regression][ARM/Thumb] Certain combo of codegen options leads to compilation infinite loop with growing memory use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969 --- Comment #17 from Przemyslaw Wirkus --- (In reply to Vladimir Makarov from comment #16) > (In reply to Przemyslaw Wirkus from comment #14) > > Hi Vladimir, > > > > I'm assigned to the issue and I'm working on it. I think I got the root > > ca

[Bug tree-optimization/85316] [meta-bug] VRP range propagation missed cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316 Bug 85316 depends on bug 98513, which changed state. Bug 98513 Summary: [10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since r10-2804-gbf05a3bbb58b3558 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513 What|Removed |Adde

[Bug tree-optimization/98513] [10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since r10-2804-gbf05a3bbb58b3558

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.2.1 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/98513] [10 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since r10-2804-gbf05a3bbb58b3558

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98513 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71878c08e967997b570b1acbd9ffef4234e94698 commit r10-9263-g71878c08e967997b570b1acbd9ffef4234e94698 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug target/96906] Failure to optimize __builtin_ia32_psubusw128 compared to 0 to __builtin_ia32_pminuw128 compared to operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96906 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/97969] [9/10/11 Regression][ARM/Thumb] Certain combo of codegen options leads to compilation infinite loop with growing memory use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969 --- Comment #16 from Vladimir Makarov --- (In reply to Przemyslaw Wirkus from comment #14) > Hi Vladimir, > > I'm assigned to the issue and I'm working on it. I think I got the root > cause. > I'm in the process of creating a patch after I compl

[Bug target/97969] [9/10/11 Regression][ARM/Thumb] Certain combo of codegen options leads to compilation infinite loop with growing memory use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969 --- Comment #15 from Vladimir Makarov --- Created attachment 49955 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49955&action=edit a patch fixing the PR

[Bug c++/98639] GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/98639] GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/98639] New: GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98639 Bug ID: 98639 Summary: GCC accepts cast from Base to Derived in C++20 mode Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug target/71233] [ARM, AArch64] missing AdvSIMD intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71233 --- Comment #73 from Christophe Lyon --- As of 2021-01-12 (trunk r11-6612 g:e91910d3576eeac714c93ec25ea3b15012007903), after applying the recipe from comment #6, the situation is: * no missing aarch64 intrinsic * List of A32/A64 intrinsics not

[Bug target/98636] [ARM] ICE on passing incompatible options for fp16 - global_options’ are modified in local context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- All right. @Prathamesh: Can you run that in debugger and show what option foo is causing the internal_error: void cl_optimization_compare (gcc_options *ptr1, gcc_options *ptr2) { ... if (ptr1->x_foo != ptr2

[Bug target/98636] [ARM] ICE on passing incompatible options for fp16 - global_options’ are modified in local context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98636 --- Comment #8 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #7) > I think the error is correct. > CCing Kyrill -- could you please confirm if the error is valid for > above case ? > Thanks! Yes, -mfp16-format=alte

[Bug tree-optimization/98282] [8/9/10 Regression] Segmentation fault when compiling with optimization >= 2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98282 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:edb7dbc25de455300ce066a2ebe728256ea46e3a commit r10-9262-gedb7dbc25de455300ce066a2ebe728256ea46e3a Author: Richard Biener

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- Yes, that -Wjump-misses-init or -Wc++-compat.

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #14 from Karine EM --- I did compile it that way: > gcc-10 -w -O2 r.c -pedantic -Wall -Wextra but got no warnings at all. Should I add any flag? Thanks!

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- Then -Wjump-misses-init should warn even on the unreduced testcase...

  1   2   >