[Bug inline-asm/97667] [11 Regression] a bug in asm_operand_ok() recog.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97667 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,

[Bug middle-end/97656] Specify that there is no address arithmetic on a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/97639] [c++20,-fconcepts-ts] ICE: gcc_assert in tsubst, cp/pt.c:15464

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97639 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/97656] Specify that there is no address arithmetic on a pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656 --- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Mon, 2 Nov 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97656 > > Jakub Jelinek changed: > >What|Removed |Added >

[Bug tree-optimization/97650] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in vect_get_and_check_slp_defs, at tree-vect-slp.c:533 with "-Os -ftree-slp-vectorize -fallow-store-data-races"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97650 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/97655] gcc/fortran/openmp.c:4133: possible cut'n'paste error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97655 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug fortran/97655] gcc/fortran/openmp.c:4133: possible cut'n'paste error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97655 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-11-02 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug sanitizer/97657] libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_posix.cpp:162: no code to deal with bad mode ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97657 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug analyzer/97668] [11 Regression] ICE in cmp_cst, at analyzer/svalue.cc:283

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97668 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug inline-asm/97667] [11 Regression] a bug in asm_operand_ok() recog.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97667 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Sta

[Bug inline-asm/97667] [11 Regression] a bug in asm_operand_ok() recog.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97667 --- Comment #3 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #2) > Likely dup of PR97540. Yes, it should be.

[Bug fortran/96886] [10 Regression] valgrind error with optional character argument of unknown length

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96886 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug inline-asm/97667] [11 Regression] a bug in asm_operand_ok() recog.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97667 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug rtl-optimization/97540] [11 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1004 since r11-4202-g4de7b010038933dd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97540 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||huntazhang at tencent dot com --- Comment

[Bug inline-asm/97667] [11 Regression] a bug in asm_operand_ok() recog.c:1801

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97667 --- Comment #5 from huntazhang --- YES DUP.

[Bug debug/97669] New: Section .debug_info.dwo contains standard_opcode_lenghts array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97669 Bug ID: 97669 Summary: Section .debug_info.dwo contains standard_opcode_lenghts array Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement

[Bug debug/97669] Section .debug_info.dwo contains standard_opcode_lenghts array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97669 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug d/97644] FAIL: gdc.dg/gdc204.d due to ICE in finish_thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 --- Comment #7 from Iain Buclaw --- Created attachment 49485 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49485&action=edit workaround pr97644 Current workaround I'm using locally for the time being is to call thunk_info::process_early_t

[Bug tree-optimization/97650] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in vect_get_and_check_slp_defs, at tree-vect-slp.c:533 with "-Os -ftree-slp-vectorize -fallow-store-data-races"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97650 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/97650] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have addr_expr in vect_get_and_check_slp_defs, at tree-vect-slp.c:533 with "-Os -ftree-slp-vectorize -fallow-store-data-races"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97650 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a159081ad4259c42456bd3dc2b637747c373c5a5 commit r11-4602-ga159081ad4259c42456bd3dc2b637747c373c5a5 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/97558] [11 Regression] ICE in vect_slp_analyze_node_operations, at tree-vect-slp.c:3342 since r11-4227-g655f7f0fb7c9aa2f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97558 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5b41d673ad96dd2f9a7dec3877d0381320ccadb1 commit r11-4603-g5b41d673ad96dd2f9a7dec3877d0381320ccadb1 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/97558] [11 Regression] ICE in vect_slp_analyze_node_operations, at tree-vect-slp.c:3342 since r11-4227-g655f7f0fb7c9aa2f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97558 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- The ICE in comment#5 remains.

[Bug tree-optimization/97505] [11 Regression] ICE in extract_range_basic, at vr-values.c:1439 since r11-4130-g16e4f1ad44e3c00b8b73c9e4ade3d236ea7044a8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97505 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f3a3327fe3d4e20a8fe863c2a3ad949864191f5d commit r11-4604-gf3a3327fe3d4e20a8fe863c2a3ad949864191f5d Author: Aldy Hernandez Date:

[Bug bootstrap/57076] @ in the src directory name causes failure while building of gcc.info

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57076 --- Comment #7 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Updated patch: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-November/557728.html

[Bug c++/97663] [c++17] Function with return type 'unsigned' in nested namespace misinterpreted as deduction guide

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97663 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/97670] New: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'mem_ref' in finistree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, hav

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97670 Bug ID: 97670 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'mem_ref' in finistree check: expected tree that contains 'decl

[Bug rtl-optimization/97540] [11 Regression] ICE in lra_set_insn_recog_data, at lra.c:1004 since r11-4202-g4de7b010038933dd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97540 --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #5) > The patch is posted at > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/557143.html With upper patch and https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-Octob

[Bug c++/97671] New: ICE: tree check: expected var_decl or function_decl or field_decl or type_decl or concept_decl or template_decl, have parm_decl in push_template_decl, at cp/pt.c:6102

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97671 Bug ID: 97671 Summary: ICE: tree check: expected var_decl or function_decl or field_decl or type_decl or concept_decl or template_decl, have parm_decl in push_template_decl,

[Bug d/97644] FAIL: gdc.dg/gdc204.d due to ICE in finish_thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 --- Comment #8 from Jan Hubicka --- > Current workaround I'm using locally for the time being is to call > thunk_info::process_early_thunks if the particular branch where this ICE > happens is hit. Why D frontend needs to expand the thunk early

[Bug middle-end/97672] New: [11 Regression] gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 – runtime: timeout with -O2 (and higher)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97672 Bug ID: 97672 Summary: [11 Regression] gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 – runtime: timeout with -O2 (and higher) Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug ipa/97673] New: [11 Regression] ICE in remap_gimple_stmt, at tree-inline.c:1922

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97673 Bug ID: 97673 Summary: [11 Regression] ICE in remap_gimple_stmt, at tree-inline.c:1922 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-cod

[Bug middle-end/97672] [11 Regression] gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 – runtime: timeout with -O2 (and higher)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97672 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Sta

[Bug fortran/97652] New pdt14 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 f

[Bug ipa/97673] [11 Regression] ICE in remap_gimple_stmt, at tree-inline.c:1922 since r11-4267-g0e590b68fa374365

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97673 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/97558] [11 Regression] ICE in vect_slp_analyze_node_operations, at tree-vect-slp.c:3342 since r11-4227-g655f7f0fb7c9aa2f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97558 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c198ddff83744f8b7bf24306ed1e6b889c44044 commit r11-4605-g4c198ddff83744f8b7bf24306ed1e6b889c44044 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/97558] [11 Regression] ICE in vect_slp_analyze_node_operations, at tree-vect-slp.c:3342 since r11-4227-g655f7f0fb7c9aa2f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97558 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/97663] [c++17] Function with return type 'unsigned' in nested namespace misinterpreted as deduction guide

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97663 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug c++/97665] constexpr union array member incorrectly rejected as non-constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug fortran/97655] gcc/fortran/openmp.c:4133: possible cut'n'paste error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97655 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b2a31e2c341d96520c5fb7c1e1f1c590eb182d7f commit r11-4606-gb2a31e2c341d96520c5fb7c1e1f1c590eb182d7f Author: Tobias Burnus Date: Mo

[Bug fortran/97655] gcc/fortran/openmp.c:4133: possible cut'n'paste error ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97655 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug d/97644] FAIL: gdc.dg/gdc204.d due to ICE in finish_thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 --- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8) > > Current workaround I'm using locally for the time being is to call > > thunk_info::process_early_thunks if the particular branch where this ICE > > happens is hit.

[Bug c++/97665] constexpr union array member incorrectly rejected as non-constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug d/97644] FAIL: gdc.dg/gdc204.d due to ICE in finish_thunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97644 > > --- Comment #9 from Iain Buclaw --- > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #8) > > > Current workaround I'm using locally for the time being is to ca

[Bug testsuite/80219] relative line numbers only working if gcc_{error,warning}_prefix defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80219 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:528507fa0314c75d1105890e4781a475c8badd7c commit r11-4607-g528507fa0314c75d1105890e4781a475c8badd7c Author: Thomas Schwinge Date:

[Bug testsuite/85303] [testsuite, libgomp] dg-message not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85303 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:528507fa0314c75d1105890e4781a475c8badd7c commit r11-4607-g528507fa0314c75d1105890e4781a475c8badd7c Author: Thomas Schwinge Date:

[Bug target/85486] [og7, nvptx] ref-1.C fails with vector length 128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:79680c1d5cd3d89c2e7423e20dc8a6e1d6dc8151 commit r11-4609-g79680c1d5cd3d89c2e7423e20dc8a6e1d6dc8151 Author: Thomas Schwinge Date:

[Bug fortran/92793] Fortran Location Data for Diagnostic lacks the column number – when passing on to ME

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92793 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5677444f7e7ca15557030902c3d09dab4852fa90 commit r11-4608-g5677444f7e7ca15557030902c3d09dab4852fa90 Author: Thomas Schwinge Date:

[Bug testsuite/80219] relative line numbers only working if gcc_{error,warning}_prefix defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80219 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591e878fc6dd08502429a8e480d8e7d966836ca9 commit r10-8959-g591e878fc6dd08502429a8e480d8e7d966836ca9 Author: Thomas Schwing

[Bug testsuite/85303] [testsuite, libgomp] dg-message not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85303 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:591e878fc6dd08502429a8e480d8e7d966836ca9 commit r10-8959-g591e878fc6dd08502429a8e480d8e7d966836ca9 Author: Thomas Schwing

[Bug target/85486] [og7, nvptx] ref-1.C fails with vector length 128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:28aaad48d5aafde3e5f269864ba934c602011328 commit r10-8961-g28aaad48d5aafde3e5f269864ba934c602011328 Author: Thomas Schwing

[Bug fortran/92793] Fortran Location Data for Diagnostic lacks the column number – when passing on to ME

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92793 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a5c5f9e181c1f7548930f1cab91002b9d460cc92 commit r10-8960-ga5c5f9e181c1f7548930f1cab91002b9d460cc92 Author: Thomas Schwing

[Bug target/85486] [og7, nvptx] ref-1.C fails with vector length 128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85486 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8860822a91e2e90a5eae726a478cd5ffc0d1fbfa commit r9-9018-g8860822a91e2e90a5eae726a478cd5ffc0d1fbfa Author: Thomas Schwinge

[Bug testsuite/85303] [testsuite, libgomp] dg-message not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85303 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3940a3ff2be0b445a5b24a222e83669e570f32a9 commit r8-10603-g3940a3ff2be0b445a5b24a222e83669e570f32a9 Author: Thomas Schwinge

[Bug testsuite/80219] relative line numbers only working if gcc_{error,warning}_prefix defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80219 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d824c5df1714403067f2a7170dd884887ce04712 commit r9-9017-gd824c5df1714403067f2a7170dd884887ce04712 Author: Thomas Schwinge

[Bug testsuite/85303] [testsuite, libgomp] dg-message not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85303 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d824c5df1714403067f2a7170dd884887ce04712 commit r9-9017-gd824c5df1714403067f2a7170dd884887ce04712 Author: Thomas Schwinge

[Bug testsuite/80219] relative line numbers only working if gcc_{error,warning}_prefix defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80219 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-8 branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3940a3ff2be0b445a5b24a222e83669e570f32a9 commit r8-10603-g3940a3ff2be0b445a5b24a222e83669e570f32a9 Author: Thomas Schwinge

[Bug testsuite/80219] relative line numbers only working if gcc_{error,warning}_prefix defined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80219 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug testsuite/85303] [testsuite, libgomp] dg-message not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85303 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0 Summary|New gfortran.dg

[Bug c++/97670] [11 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected tree that contains 'decl minimal' structure, have 'mem_ref' in finish_omp_clauses, at cp/semantics.c:8251

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97670 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug fortran/97674] New: [11 Regression] gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 is compiled into an infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97674 Bug ID: 97674 Summary: [11 Regression] gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 is compiled into an infinite loop Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug fortran/97674] [11 Regression] gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 is compiled into an infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97674 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- I can only see one __vtype_link_module_Pdtlink_8 and one Pdtlink_8 type (breaking at record_component_aliases).

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Oh, btw: > /home/rguenther/obj-gcc2-g/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../gfortran > -B/home/rguenther/obj-gcc2-g/gcc/testsuite/gfortran/../../ > -B/home/rguenther/obj-gcc2-g/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/./libgfortran/

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-11-02 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- > And it looks like something (inlining) inserts __builtin_unreachable () calls > that eventually make us optimize this to an endless loop. > > pdt_14.f03.081i.inline:Introduced new external node > (__builtin

[Bug ipa/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|fortran |ipa --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener

[Bug ipa/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #7) > > And it looks like something (inlining) inserts __builtin_unreachable () > > calls > > that eventually make us optimize this to an endless loop. > > > > pdt_14.

[Bug ipa/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- > > Aha, that will be the wrong jump function from ipa-cp I mentioned in > > earlier comment. We should not believe that root is not written to as > > we derive now from TBAA in push_8. > > But -fno-ipa-cp d

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|ipa |fortran --- Comment #11 from Richard Bi

[Bug fortran/97652] [11 Regression] New gfortran.dg/pdt_14.f03 failure after g:617695cdc2b3d950f1e4deb5ea85d5cc302943f4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97652 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- Note setting TYPE_TYPELESS_STORAGE on the aggregates doesn't help the testcase since the pointer types are the issue.

[Bug c++/97675] New: GCC does not allow turning off the warning for exceptions being caught by an earlier handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97675 Bug ID: 97675 Summary: GCC does not allow turning off the warning for exceptions being caught by an earlier handler Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/97638] aarch64: bti c is missing at function entry with branch-protection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97638 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sudakshina Das : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ce99142c11b8090105cbf2aa853262f6d9abc0d3 commit r11-4615-gce99142c11b8090105cbf2aa853262f6d9abc0d3 Author: Sudakshina Das Date:

[Bug fortran/97320] False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop" in a protecting if block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320 Jacques Le Bourlot changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Jacques.Lebourlot at obspm dot fr

[Bug c/97578] ice during IPA pass: inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97578 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug rtl-optimization/97676] New: "*" should skip a constraint, not just one char of it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97676 Bug ID: 97676 Summary: "*" should skip a constraint, not just one char of it Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug fortran/97320] False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop" in a protecting if block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug fortran/97320] False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop" in a protecting if block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320 --- Comment #4 from Jacques Le Bourlot --- (In reply to kargl from comment #3) > (In reply to Jacques Le Bourlot from comment #2) > > > > The compiler should see that "IF (i >= 1)" THEN "i-1 >= 0". Quoting the > > manual is not an adequate answe

[Bug c++/97665] constexpr union array member incorrectly rejected as non-constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665 --- Comment #4 from Luke Dalessandro --- Hi Jakob, Thank you for looking at this. I restructured the code sample according to your suggestions and it is available here https://godbolt.org/z/P1bMEz. I don't understand a couple of things that you

[Bug target/93449] PPC: Missing conversion builtin from vector to _Decimal128 and vice versa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93449 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Carl Love : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05161256d3d2a598966ca1cf676fa0e427570f73 commit r11-4623-g05161256d3d2a598966ca1cf676fa0e427570f73 Author: Carl Love Date: Mon Aug 31

[Bug target/93449] PPC: Missing conversion builtin from vector to _Decimal128 and vice versa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93449 Carl Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cel at us dot ibm.com --- Comment #10 from C

[Bug target/93449] PPC: Missing conversion builtin from vector to _Decimal128 and vice versa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93449 Carl Love changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/97665] constexpr union array member incorrectly rejected as non-constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665 --- Comment #5 from Luke Dalessandro --- Ugh... replying to myself. > You can do Foo foo = Foo(); and it compiles. >> 1. I can't do `Foo foo = Foo();` because the purpose of the union is to >> allocate uninitialized storage for the `Foo` durin

[Bug c++/97677] New: std::array and std::initializer_list gives wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97677 Bug ID: 97677 Summary: std::array and std::initializer_list gives wrong results Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug c++/97675] GCC does not allow turning off the warning for exceptions being caught by an earlier handler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97675 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/97665] constexpr union array member incorrectly rejected as non-constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- All I'm saying is that I believe your code is not valid C++17, but is valid C++20 and that for C++20 we have a compiler bug we need to fix.

[Bug c++/97665] constexpr union array member incorrectly rejected as non-constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97665 --- Comment #7 from Luke Dalessandro --- Thank you, sorry for the confusion.

[Bug tree-optimization/97678] New: [11 regression] execution fail for gcc.target/powerpc/p9-vec-length-epil-run-5.c after r11-4614

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97678 Bug ID: 97678 Summary: [11 regression] execution fail for gcc.target/powerpc/p9-vec-length-epil-run-5.c after r11-4614 Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Stat

[Bug c++/97679] New: ICE with CTAD on a nested class template with constrained constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97679 Bug ID: 97679 Summary: ICE with CTAD on a nested class template with constrained constructor Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/97680] New: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680 Bug ID: 97680 Summary: new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/97320] False positive "Array reference out of bounds in loop" in a protecting if block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97320 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|

[Bug fortran/94978] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Bogus warning "Array reference at (1) out of bounds in loop beginning at (2)"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94978 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||trnka at scm dot com --- Comm

[Bug testsuite/97680] new test case c-c++-common/zero-scratch-regs-10.c in r11-4578 has excess errors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97680 --- Comment #1 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to seurer from comment #0) > commit d10f3e900b0377b4760a090b0f90371bcef01686 > Author: qing zhao > Date: Fri Oct 30 20:41:38 2020 +0100 > > If looks like the errors are all like thi

[Bug target/70210] -march=native and -mcpu=native do not detect ARM cortex-a53 in 32 bit mode on Linux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70210 Viktor Engelmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Viktor.Engelmann@googlemail

[Bug c++/97681] New: noinline attribute ignored on constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681 Bug ID: 97681 Summary: noinline attribute ignored on constexpr function Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/97681] noinline attribute ignored on constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c++/97681] noinline attribute ignored on constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681 --- Comment #2 from Luke Dalessandro --- Okay, how would one constrain such inlining in order to retain a symbol and stack frame for debugging purposes?

[Bug c++/97681] noinline attribute ignored on constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Don't mark it constexpr. Or, if it has any arguments, don't call it with constant arguments, but call it with non-constant ones.

[Bug c++/97681] noinline attribute ignored on constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97681 --- Comment #4 from Luke Dalessandro --- There are other occurrences of `a` that _are_ in `constexpr` context, it is used in both contexts within the application thus the keyword is necessary. This report came from a testcase reduction, so I'll

  1   2   >