[Bug rtl-optimization/89895] New: Unable to sink high half of widening multiply out of loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89895 Bug ID: 89895 Summary: Unable to sink high half of widening multiply out of loop Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug lto/89896] New: -flto=4 is confused by presence of all.o in a local directory. -flto=1 is not.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896 Bug ID: 89896 Summary: -flto=4 is confused by presence of all.o in a local directory. -flto=1 is not. Product: gcc Version: 8.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/78674] [cleanup] merge gfc_convert_type_warn and gfc_convert_chartype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78674 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres --- > Patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2016-12/msg00045.html Any reason why this patch has never been pinged?

[Bug lto/89896] -flto=4 is confused by presence of 'all.c' in a local directory. -flto=1 is not.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89896 Sergei Trofimovich changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|-flto=4 is confused by |-flto=4 is confused by

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 --- Comment #9 from Thomas Koenig --- I think this is a high-priority bug that we should try to fix before the GCC 9 release. Some discussion here: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2019-03/msg00124.html Jeremy, you mentioned that you commented o

[Bug d/88462] All D execution tests FAIL on Solaris/SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88462 --- Comment #13 from ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: ibuclaw Date: Sun Mar 31 14:34:41 2019 New Revision: 270043 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270043&root=gcc&view=rev Log: d: Fix run-time SIGSEGV reading ModuleInfo.flags() The cur

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 --- Comment #10 from Thomas Koenig --- This patch Index: class.c === --- class.c (Revision 269895) +++ class.c (Arbeitskopie) @@ -1031,11 +1031,13 @@ finalize_component (gfc

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #10) > This patch > > Index: class.c > === > --- class.c (Revision 269895) > +++ class.c (Arbe

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 --- Comment #12 from Jeremy Sanders --- Thomas - unfortunately I don't have a copy of what I did. I think reverting this patch fixes the problem though: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc/trunk/gcc/fortran/resolve.c?r1=254427&r2=254426&pathrev=25442

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 --- Comment #13 from Jeremy Sanders --- Created attachment 46063 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46063&action=edit log (minor edits) from instrumentation patch

[Bug fortran/87352] [7/8/9 Regression] Large stack usage with new gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87352 --- Comment #14 from Jeremy Sanders --- Created attachment 46064 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=46064&action=edit Patch to instrument gfortran for test case

[Bug fortran/84487] [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto with r254427

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/42958] Weird temporary array allocation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42958 --- Comment #26 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #25) > > If you find anything still missing in the library, please let me know. > > I thought I had converted everything to the macros, which are fairly > > eas

[Bug debug/89529] Wrong debug info generated at -Og [gcc-trunk]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89529 Qirun Zhang changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qrzhang at gatech dot edu --- Comment #3 f

[Bug rtl-optimization/80960] [7/8/9 Regression] Huge memory use when compiling a very large test case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80960 --- Comment #13 from Thomas Koenig --- With -O2, the combiner takes up quite a lot of time: $ time gfortran -ftime-report -g0 -O2 -fdefault-integer-8 -c fe_objective.f90 alias stmt walking : 15.75 ( 4%) 0.11 ( 5%) 15.89 (

[Bug c/78736] enum warnings in GCC (request for -Wenum-conversion to be added)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78736 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||87403 Summary|enum warnings i

[Bug fortran/85797] ICE in gfc_element_size, at fortran/target-memory.c:126

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 18:33:51 2019 New Revision: 270045 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270045&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/83515

[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 18:33:51 2019 New Revision: 270045 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270045&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/83515

[Bug c++/52763] Warning if compare between enum and non-enum type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52763 --- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #8) > Clang warns when an enum object is compared to a constant that's out of the > most restricted range of the enum's type. The warning is in -Wall. It > doesn't wa

[Bug c++/89897] New: suggest header for SIGABRT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89897 Bug ID: 89897 Summary: suggest header for SIGABRT Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee:

[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #17 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 19:08:23 2019 New Revision: 270046 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270046&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/83515

[Bug fortran/85797] ICE in gfc_element_size, at fortran/target-memory.c:126

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 19:08:23 2019 New Revision: 270046 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270046&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf PR fortran/83515

[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #18 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 19:21:37 2019 New Revision: 270047 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270047&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf Backport from trunk

[Bug fortran/85797] ICE in gfc_element_size, at fortran/target-memory.c:126

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797 --- Comment #8 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: anlauf Date: Sun Mar 31 19:21:37 2019 New Revision: 270047 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270047&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-03-31 Harald Anlauf Backport from trunk

[Bug fortran/85797] ICE in gfc_element_size, at fortran/target-memory.c:126

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85797 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|-

[Bug rtl-optimization/89528] Wrong debug info generated at -Og [gcc-trunk]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89528 Qirun Zhang changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qrzhang at gatech dot edu --- Comment #2 f

[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|-

[Bug tree-optimization/46590] long compile time with -O2 and many loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46590 --- Comment #48 from Thomas Koenig --- The test case from comment#5 and comment#6 has regressed for M7/8/9: $ time gfortran-4.8 -O1 gener-4.f90 real0m11.509s user0m11.356s sys 0m0.148s $ time gfortran-7 -O1 gener-4.f90 real

[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #20 from DIL --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #19) > Fixed on trunk and all open branches (7/8). > > Closing, as no reduced run-time testcase was provided. > Please reopen or create a new PR if an issue is found. > > Thanks for

[Bug fortran/88139] ICE in get_c_type_name, at fortran/dump-parse-tree.c:3047

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88139 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/83515] ICE: Invalid expression in gfc_element_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83515 --- Comment #21 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to DIL from comment #20) > Thanks for fixing this bug! Sorry, I have not had time yet to create a > reduced non-trivial test case. Would you still like to add it later if I > make it? If

[Bug fortran/85868] Subarray of a pointer array associated with a pointer dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85868 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/89852] [9 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression of kind implicit_conv_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89852 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- Author: mpolacek Date: Sun Mar 31 20:37:22 2019 New Revision: 270048 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270048&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR c++/89852 - ICE with C++11 functional cast with { }.

[Bug c++/89852] [9 Regression] ICE: unexpected expression of kind implicit_conv_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89852 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/35276] Doc should described how to compile mixed-language programs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #6 from Thomas Koenig -

[Bug fortran/84487] [8/9 Regression] Large rodate section increase in 465.tonto with r254427

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84487 --- Comment #15 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #14) > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-03/msg01478.html > might also cure this one, without source I cannot tell. No, it does not help.

[Bug rtl-optimization/88730] [8 Regression] gcc generates wrong debug information at -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88730 --- Comment #4 from Qirun Zhang --- Bisection points to r254888.

[Bug debug/88882] gcc generates wrong debug information at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2 --- Comment #2 from Qirun Zhang --- Bisection points to r216247.

[Bug c++/89878] same specializations on a zero-initialized struct object as a non-type parameter treated as distinct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89878 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid --- Comment #1 from Martin

[Bug debug/89791] gcc generates wrong debug information at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89791 Qirun Zhang changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug debug/89792] gcc generates wrong debug information at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89792 Qirun Zhang changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/89898] New: invalid function template definition with non-type class argument accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89898 Bug ID: 89898 Summary: invalid function template definition with non-type class argument accepted Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/89725] [8/9 Regression] ICE in get_fnname_from_decl, at varasm.c:1723

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89725 --- Comment #11 from bin cheng --- In case of data reference has more access functions than loop_nest of data dependence analysis, we need to skip/ignore access functions corresponding loops not in the loop_nest. So far this only happens in loop

[Bug c++/77449] False ambiguity for variadic function with non-deduced template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77449 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Status|UNCONFI

[Bug debug/42065] DWARF .debug_macinfo contains unused macros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42065 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #4) > If -feliminate-unused-debug-symbols and/or -feliminate-unused-debug-types > start removing these, I'd want them to turn on -Wunused-macros automatically > for me

[Bug c++/46476] Missing Warning about unreachable code after return [-Wunreachable-code-return]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46476 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||89863 --- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager

[Bug jit/64196] No automated test coverage for debugging of JIT-generated code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64196 --- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #2) > (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #0) > > gcc/jit/docs/intro/tutorial04.rst shows an example of debugging, > > single-stepping through JIT-generated code in

[Bug go/52357] 64bit-out.go and go.test/test/cmplxdivide.go time out on Solaris/SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52357 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |SUSPENDED --- Comment #6 from Eric Galla

[Bug jit/66074] gcc_jit_result_get_code returns a void*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66074 --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- David, are you the assignee on this because you're actually working on it, or just because that's the default for bugs filed under the "jit" component?

[Bug ipa/89893] Segmentation fault always occurs when node app is generated by gcc-8-branch@268745

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89893 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|