[Bug sanitizer/88426] [8/9 Regression] Compiler crash if use special code with command line switch -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88426 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/88404] ICE (tree check) with -fsanitize=thread on Fortran2003 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88404 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code S

[Bug demangler/87675] Stack Overflow in function next_is_type_qual() in cp-demangle.c, as demonstrated by "nm -C"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87675 Tanaya Patil changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tanaya_patil at persistent dot com --- C

[Bug fortran/88393] [7/8/9 Regression] [OOP] Segfault with type-bound assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393 --- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #1) > The test compiled with r241883 + patches (2016-11-06) gives the expected > result, compiled with r241924 + patches (2016-11-07) gives a segfault

[Bug sanitizer/88404] ICE (tree check) with -fsanitize=thread on Fortran2003 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88404 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug sanitizer/88426] [8/9 Regression] Compiler crash if use special code with command line switch -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88426 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/88405] Missed DSE opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88405 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/88409] [9 Regression] FAIL at line 4429, options --format=gnu-v3:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88409 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug target/88414] [9 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at lra-assigns.c:1624

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88414 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||schwab at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mile

[Bug tree-optimization/88415] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: dead STMT in EH table)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88415 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/88416] [8/9 Regression] ICE in in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3013

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88416 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mile

[Bug c++/88419] [9 Regression] [ICE] "Same canonical type node for different types" for CTAD in noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/88414] [9 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at lra-assigns.c:1624

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88414 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization --- Comment #2 from Uroš

[Bug lto/88422] collect2.exe: fatal error: lto-wrapper returned 1 exit status: file not recognized: file truncated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88422 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/88427] [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have plus_expr in get_len, at tree.h:5617

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/88035] missing _mm512_reduce_round_pd() et al

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88035 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/88404] ICE (tree check) with -fsanitize=thread on Fortran2003 code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88404 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2018-12-10 00:00:00 | Component|sanitizer

[Bug target/88035] missing _mm512_reduce_round_pd() et al

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88035 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- I must say I don't understand the #c1 comment, GCC __builtin_ia32_reducepd512_mask etc. don't take the rounding mode argument at all. And not only the _mm_*reduce_round* intrinsics are missing, _mm512_*reduc

[Bug bootstrap/65725] Bootstrap errors on Solaris 10 x86-64, including object diffs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth --- Author: ro Date: Mon Dec 10 09:49:02 2018 New Revision: 266946 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266946&root=gcc&view=rev Log: Don't try to use libgcc-unwind.map with --disable-shared (PR bootstrap/65725)

[Bug debug/26475] tree-ssa loses line numbers for initializations (constants for PHIs)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26475 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/88425] suboptimal code for a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/65725] Bootstrap errors on Solaris 10 x86-64, including object diffs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely --- No. They're not "less strict", but they have a fixed underlying type. For any enumeration type with a fixed underlying type (whether "enum class" or just "enum") the validvalues of the type are all the va

[Bug c++/86228] ordered comparison between pointer and zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86228 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to eracpp from comment #2) > This bug was observed in the following example: > > https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/p1VreP > > #include > #include > > int main() > { > std::array arr; > > //

[Bug c++/88413] g++ mangles names involving unresolved names in function argument template parameters differently from the ABI standard.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/88425] suboptimal code for a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88425 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug rtl-optimization/88416] [8/9 Regression] ICE in in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3013

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88416 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/88413] g++ mangles names involving unresolved names in function argument template parameters differently from the ABI standard.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- The only case I see with "sr" in mangle.c is: else { write_string ("sr"); write_type (scope); write_member_name (member); } but the grammar has: ::= sr

[Bug c++/88419] [7/8/9 Regression] [ICE] "Same canonical type node for different types" for CTAD in noexcept

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88419 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milest

[Bug rtl-optimization/88416] [8/9 Regression] ICE in in df_uses_record, at df-scan.c:3013

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88416 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #2 from Segher Boes

[Bug libstdc++/88421] compat C headers break building GCC with GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug libstdc++/88421] compat C headers break building GCC with GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421 --- Comment #3 from coypu --- include/c_compatibility/fenv.h

[Bug libstdc++/88421] compat C headers break building GCC with GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- That is one header, not two, so why should that fenv.h's #include_next include that same header or some copy of that header in a different path?

[Bug libstdc++/88421] compat C headers break building GCC with GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421 --- Comment #5 from coypu --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > That is one header, not two, so why should that fenv.h's #include_next > include that same header or some copy of that header in a different path? I am in the process of

[Bug rtl-optimization/88414] [9 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at lra-assigns.c:1624

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88414 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libstdc++/88421] compat C headers break building GCC with GCC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88421 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to coypu from comment #1) > suggested change: put #include_next outside of include guards? We did something similar for PR 69581

[Bug rtl-optimization/88428] New: Fails to consider lea -1(%rax), %rax compared to sub 1, %rax failing to CSE test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88428 Bug ID: 88428 Summary: Fails to consider lea -1(%rax), %rax compared to sub 1, %rax failing to CSE test Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/88415] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: dead STMT in EH table)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88415 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Dec 10 12:39:07 2018 New Revision: 266951 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266951&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-12-10 Richard Biener PR middle-end/88415 * gim

[Bug tree-optimization/88415] [7/8 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (error: dead STMT in EH table)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88415 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||9.0 Summary|[7/8/9 Regressio

[Bug ada/88429] New: Ada bootstrap fails with --disable-shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88429 Bug ID: 88429 Summary: Ada bootstrap fails with --disable-shared Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ada

[Bug testsuite/88369] [9 regression] g++.dg/vect/pr33426-ivdep.cc etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Dec 10 12:42:05 2018 New Revision: 266952 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266952&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR testsuite/88369 * gcc.dg/vect/vect-ivdep-1.c: Prune ver

[Bug testsuite/88369] [9 regression] g++.dg/vect/pr33426-ivdep.cc etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88369 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug ipa/88214] ICE in bitmap_intersect_p() on 32-bit BE platforms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214 --- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor --- Author: jamborm Date: Mon Dec 10 12:45:47 2018 New Revision: 266953 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266953&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [PR 88214] Check that an argument is a pointer 2018-12-10 Martin Jambo

[Bug other/66955] Bootstrap error: libcc1 compiled as shared library despite --disable-shared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66955 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu|x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu,

[Bug go/56431] -lpthread should be added to -lgo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56431 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 from

[Bug ipa/88214] ICE in bitmap_intersect_p() on 32-bit BE platforms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88214 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/65725] Bootstrap errors on Solaris 10 x86-64, including object diffs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65725 --- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth --- [...] >> > 2. stage2 vs. stage3 diffs [...] > When trying a mainline bootstrap, I've run into quite a number of issues > (libcc1 and ada not buildin

[Bug testsuite/88290] [9 regression] 23_containers/deque/erasure.cc fails after r266672

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c/88430] New: -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including libquadmath headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430 Bug ID: 88430 Summary: -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including libquadmath headers Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/87957] [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051 since r265519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #14

[Bug ipa/87955] [9 Regression] ICE in cl_target_option_print_diff at gcc/options-save.c:3803 since r265920

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87955 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Dec 10 13:30:49 2018 New Revision: 266954 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266954&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ipa/87955 * gcc.target/i386/pr87955.c: Add -msse2 -mfpm

[Bug ipa/87955] [9 Regression] ICE in cl_target_option_print_diff at gcc/options-save.c:3803 since r265920

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87955 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug ipa/80726] [7/8/9 Regression] Destructor not inlined anymore (regression)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80726 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Honza, have you managed to look at this?

[Bug sanitizer/85777] [7/8/9 Regression] -fsanitize=undefined makes a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning disappear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- The expectations that sanitization doesn't change generated warnings is a wrong one, the runtime instrumentation affects the code generation so much that necessarily some further warnings will be emitted and

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/88427] [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have plus_expr in get_len, at tree.h:5617

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/88427] [9 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected integer_cst, have plus_expr in get_len, at tree.h:5617

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88427 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Dec 10 13:56:51 2018 New Revision: 266955 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266955&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-12-10 Richard Biener PR tree-optimization/88427

[Bug ipa/87957] [9 Regression] ICE tree check: expected tree that contains ‘decl minimal’ structure, have ‘identifier_node’ in warn_odr, at ipa-devirt.c:1051 since r265519

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87957 --- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- > That would be the > gcc_checking_assert (TREE_TYPE (name) == t); > assert then. So, what is TREE_TYPE (name) and what is t when

[Bug d/88431] New: link errors on build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88431 Bug ID: 88431 Summary: link errors on build Product: gcc Version: 8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: d Assignee: ibuclaw

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85762 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/88430] -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including libquadmath headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug debug/88432] New: Dwarf line numbering inadequate when using -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432 Bug ID: 88432 Summary: Dwarf line numbering inadequate when using -fstack-protector-strong Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug demangler/87675] Stack Overflow in function next_is_type_qual() in cp-demangle.c, as demonstrated by "nm -C"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87675 --- Comment #8 from Nick Clifton --- (In reply to Tanaya Patil from comment #7) > Should we expect this fix to be in Binutil 2.32? Yes. :-)

[Bug debug/88432] Dwarf line numbering inadequate when using -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432 --- Comment #1 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 45199 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45199&action=edit rtl final dump for the .cc file

[Bug debug/88432] Dwarf line numbering inadequate when using -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432 --- Comment #2 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 45200 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45200&action=edit Final assembly dump for the .cc file with dwarf

[Bug fortran/88393] [7/8/9 Regression] [OOP] Segfault with type-bound assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88393 janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug debug/88432] Dwarf line numbering inadequate when using -fstack-protector-strong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88432 --- Comment #3 from alahay01 at gcc dot gnu.org --- I considered a number of solutions, but they all had issues: 1) Place the RTL for the stack guard inside the prologue, giving: *function prologue rtl *stack guard code (__stack_chk_guard) *NOT

[Bug testsuite/88290] [9 regression] 23_containers/deque/erasure.cc fails after r266672

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|-

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug libstdc++/88290] [9 regression] 23_containers/deque/erasure.cc fails after r266672

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88290 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|testsuite |libstdc++ --- Comment #3 from Jonathan

[Bug target/88418] [7/8/9 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2305 (error: unrecognizable insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88418 --- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: uros Date: Mon Dec 10 15:47:16 2018 New Revision: 266958 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266958&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR target/88418 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_expand_

[Bug sanitizer/85777] [7/8/9 Regression] -fsanitize=undefined makes a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning disappear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777 --- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > If you care about warnings as well as sanitization, I'd suggest separate > builds for warnings and for sanitization, the latter perhaps with -w. This is fine f

[Bug sanitizer/85777] [7/8/9 Regression] -fsanitize=undefined makes a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning disappear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- That can be dealt in the Makefile rules, for sanitization use something like $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(WARNOPTS) -S -o /dev/null $< $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(SANITIZEOPTS) -c -o $@ $< 2>/dev/null or similar.

[Bug tree-optimization/85459] [8/9 Regression] Larger code generated from GMP template meta-programming

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85459 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug sanitizer/85777] [7/8/9 Regression] -fsanitize=undefined makes a -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning disappear

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85777 --- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre --- But this cannot apply to projects that use GNU Automake, which does not generate such rules. And with Automake, things are more complex in practice, because in the rules, there are additional options for de

[Bug c++/88413] g++ mangles names involving unresolved names in function argument template parameters differently from the ABI standard.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413 --- Comment #8 from brennan at umanwizard dot com --- Yes that is the literal srN string and in fact GCC does output that sometimes, for example on the following program which made it a lot clearer to me what is going on. template struct S1 { };

[Bug c++/88413] g++ mangles names involving unresolved names in function argument template parameters differently from the ABI standard.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88413 --- Comment #9 from brennan at umanwizard dot com --- There is an open issue from Oct. 2017 on the ABI standard's official website (which is a Github repo): https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/38 It appears to be the exact thing we

[Bug lto/86004] [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing with r260963

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004 --- Comment #12 from Jan Hubicka --- Thanks a lot for looking into this. Indeed disabling the tests is probably good idea, so the patch looks good to me. Somewhere we should document minimal binutils release supporting incremental link... Honza

[Bug rtl-optimization/84345] [8/9 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov --- I think gcc_qsort doesn't really change things here, validation failure implies a logic issue in the comparator, so some step is not always working as the author intended. And even with gcc_qsort it's st

[Bug rtl-optimization/84345] [8/9 Regression] ICE: qsort checking failed (error: qsort comparator non-negative on sorted output: 1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84345 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- I thought the main argument for the qsort checking was to avoid different code generation between different hosts (e.g. with cross-compilers etc.). Some of the comparator issues were just easy bugs in the log

[Bug c/88430] -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including libquadmath headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 45202 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45202&action=edit gcc9-pr88430.patch For quadmath_weak.h it can be easily handled with the attached patch. There are additional 1

[Bug c/88430] -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including libquadmath headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- The change occurred between r265975 (no warning) and r266035 (warnings).

[Bug c/88430] -Wmissing-attributes warnings when including libquadmath headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88430 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The expected mechanism to apply the attributes is by using the new copy attribute. (It's been on my to-do list to look into these.)

[Bug target/87369] [9 Regression] Regression on aarch64/copysign-bsl.c since r264264

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87369 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|samtebbs

[Bug fortran/88269] ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269 --- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Dec 10 18:05:37 2018 New Revision: 266959 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266959&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/88269

[Bug target/88433] New: wrong code for printf after a pointer cast from a pointer to an adjacent object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88433 Bug ID: 88433 Summary: wrong code for printf after a pointer cast from a pointer to an adjacent object Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug tree-optimization/86196] [9 Regression] Bogus -Wrestrict on memcpy between array elements at unequal indices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86196 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug middle-end/86979] [9 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2348 with -m32 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/88397] attribute malloc ignored on function pointers when alloc_size is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88397 --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor --- The problem with attribute noreturn is tracked separately in bug 79604 (the C front end seems to do the right thing there, as do Clang and ICC in both C and C++ modes). For attributes alloc_align and malloc,

[Bug middle-end/86979] [9 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2348 with -m32 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/86979] [9 Regression] ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2348 with -m32 on darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86979 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Any particular tuning option (what -march/-mtune is the default)? Can you attach your auto-host.h? Perhaps could you attach a tarball with -da dumps with the above options, so I can try to figure out why I ca

[Bug fortran/88269] ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Dec 10 19:26:43 2018 New Revision: 266960 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266960&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/88269

[Bug c++/88216] [9 Regression] ICE (-std=c++2a) in cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:4602

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88216 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #11 from Askar Safin --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > I wish people would just learn how enums work, it's not that complicated. Okey, now I understand everything. Now I see that, well, -fstrict-enums silences warn

[Bug fortran/88269] ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269 --- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: kargl Date: Mon Dec 10 20:03:32 2018 New Revision: 266962 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266962&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2018-12-10 Steven G. Kargl PR fortran/88269

[Bug fortran/88269] ICE in gfc_format_decoder, at fortran/error.c:947

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88269 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/52869] [DR 1207] "this" not being allowed in noexcept clauses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52869 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's not a useless warning. If I call your function from comment 7 like this, I get undefined behaviour: CoverMyBases( Enum{2} ); Your switch is undefined for this code. That's what GCC is warning you

[Bug c++/87951] GCC warns about reaching end of non-void function when all switch is completely handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87951 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13

[Bug c++/88434] New: operator< should take precedence over template argument in basic.lookup.classref

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88434 Bug ID: 88434 Summary: operator< should take precedence over template argument in basic.lookup.classref Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

  1   2   >