[Bug middle-end/113921] Output register of an "asm volatile goto" is incorrectly clobbered/discarded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113921 --- Comment #12 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4040d472825f203660371331c9e86cd75e30f8d2 commit r13-8328-g4040d472825f203660371331c9e86cd75e30f8d2 Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #36) > > > Having a testcase is great. I was just playing with crafting one. > > > I am still concerned about value ranges in ipa-prop's jump functions. > > > > Maybe

[Bug analyzer/111802] New analyser diagram failures since commit b365e9d57ad4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111802 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Thanks for filing this bug report. The issue seems to be with the top line here: ┌┬┬┬┬┐┌─┬─┬─┐ │[1] │[1] │[1] │[1] │

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #37 from Jan Hubicka --- > Also remember we like to have a fix that's easily backportable, and > that's probably going to be resetting the info. We can do something > more fancy for GCC 15 Rejecting to merge function with different

[Bug middle-end/107385] [asm goto] "=r" vs "+r" for outputs along indirect edges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107385 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5459a9074afabf700f055fc8164f88dadb1c39b0 commit r14-9013-g5459a9074afabf700f055fc8164f88dadb1c39b0 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: T

[Bug middle-end/113921] Output register of an "asm volatile goto" is incorrectly clobbered/discarded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113921 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b4efc5db2aedb59196987300e14951d08cd7106 commit r14-9012-g2b4efc5db2aedb59196987300e14951d08cd7106 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug c++/113929] New: GCC accepts template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113929 Bug ID: 113929 Summary: GCC accepts template Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: una

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #36 from Jan Hubicka --- > > Having a testcase is great. I was just playing with crafting one. > > I am still concerned about value ranges in ipa-prop's jump functions. > > Maybe my imagination is too limited, but if the ipa-prop's

[Bug c++/99546] Weird return value of C++20 requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99546 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Giese --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #8) > The OP's example is supposed to be ill-formed though, it shouldn't compile > successfully. So I don't think it's fixed. That's my mistake, sorry. Yes the second

[Bug c/113887] no support for %w128 length modifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113887 --- Comment #12 from Jens Gustedt --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #11) > As I said in comment#2, I prefer a constant suffix for __int128 to the > wb/uwb hack - I think it's cleaner, as well as allowing int128_t to work > properly o

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #35 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, rguenther at suse dot de wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 > > --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, jakub at

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #34 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 > > --- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3

[Bug analyzer/111266] [13/14 Regression] Missing -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds for concrete offset overwrite.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111266 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #19 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b312cf21afd62b43fbc5034703e2796b0c3c416d commit r14-9011-gb312cf21afd62b43fbc5034703e2796b0c3c416d Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek --- Anyway, should I work on the union variant or do you want to take this over?

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #32 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #31) > Having a testcase is great. I was just playing with crafting one. > I am still concerned about value ranges in ipa-prop's jump functions. Maybe my imagination i

[Bug analyzer/113619] [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-tainted-divisor false positive seen in Linux kernel's fs/ceph/ioctl.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113619 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug analyzer/113606] [14 Regression] -Wanalyzer-infinite-recursion false positive on code involving strstr, memset, strnlen and -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113606 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Summary|-Wanalyzer-infinit

[Bug analyzer/113509] ICE: SIGSEGV in c_tree_printer (c-objc-common.cc:341) with -fanalyzer -fanalyzer-verbose-state-changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113509 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vultkayn at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/110907] ICE when using -fanalyzer-verbose-state-changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110907 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 --- Comment #31 from Jan Hubicka --- Having a testcase is great. I was just playing with crafting one. I am still concerned about value ranges in ipa-prop's jump functions. Let me see if I can modify the testcase to also trigger problem with val

[Bug middle-end/113205] [14 Regression] internal compiler error: in backward_pass, at tree-vect-slp.cc:5346 since r14-3220

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113205 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Richard S., any comments on this?

[Bug c++/99546] Weird return value of C++20 requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99546 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2022-09-20 00:00:00 |2024-2-15 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan

[Bug c++/99546] Weird return value of C++20 requires expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99546 Andrew Giese changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gieseanw+gcc at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/113927] [avr-tiny] Sets up a stack-frame even for trivial code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113927 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Keywords|missed-opti

[Bug other/113927] [avr-tiny] Sets up a stack-frame even for trivial code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113927 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f0ca42fb5556f2c6b76b017fbbd90820a728ce0 commit r13-8327-g0f0ca42fb5556f2c6b76b017fbbd90820a728ce0 Author: Georg-Johann

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to rhalbersma from comment #8) > For bitset::operator==, I wonder why (at last in C++20 and later mode) it is > not defaulted? Because nobody bothered to change working code. > For bitset::set

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 --- Comment #8 from rhalbersma --- For bitset::operator==, I wonder why (at last in C++20 and later mode) it is not defaulted? For bitset::set and bitset::operator==, I also wonder why the manual loop vs memset/memcmp consteval logic is not de

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Hmm, yes, the code for bitset::set() is actually similar to what we get for foo() in comment 5. The new version with memset does produce different (vectorized?) code though. For operator== the current cod

[Bug other/113927] [avr-tiny] Sets up a stack-frame even for trivial code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113927 --- Comment #1 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5cff288c2dae4ea709df067cf398f23e214b2e80 commit r14-9009-g5cff288c2dae4ea709df067cf398f23e214b2e80 Author: Georg-Johann Lay Dat

[Bug middle-end/107385] [asm goto] "=r" vs "+r" for outputs along indirect edges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107385 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- So 2024-02-15 Jakub Jelinek PR middle-end/107385 * gcc.dg/pr107385.c: New test. --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr107385.c.jj 2024-01-13 00:05:00.077372302 +0100 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr107

[Bug middle-end/107385] [asm goto] "=r" vs "+r" for outputs along indirect edges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107385 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |FIXED --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #18 from Richard Biener --- diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc index 7cf9504398c..8deeecfd4aa 100644 --- a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc +++ b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.cc @@ -1280,8 +1280,11 @@ vect_build_slp_tree_1 (vec_info *

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- It can also for an effective memset to a non-constant, but it has to be uniform, thus 'char'.

[Bug debug/113918] Incomplete DWARF5 debug information for anonymous unions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113918 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org St

[Bug other/113927] [avr-tiny] Sets up a stack-frame even for trivial code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113927 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/113508] widen_ssumm3 documentation needs to mention which mode is m here

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113508 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/113508] widen_ssumm3 documentation needs to mention which mode is m here

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113508 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5329b94188206e9f8c96d9a63931c415fa5d39d7 commit r14-9006-g5329b94188206e9f8c96d9a63931c415fa5d39d7 Author: Andrew Pinski Date: We

[Bug libstdc++/113811] std::rotate does 64-bit signed division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113811 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/113806] [performance] bitset::operator>>= unnecessarily sanitizes the high-word

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113806 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #17 from Richard Biener --- I think the following fixes it, can you verify the runtime (IL looks sane, but it uses masked scatter stores). diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc b/gcc/tree-vect-loop.cc index 9e26b09504d..5a5865c42fc 100

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wak

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 --- Comment #3 from rhalbersma --- Nice that this is changed now. I noticed a similar optimization could be done for bitset::operator== (more accurately: the helper _M_is_equal) where there is an opportunity to use memcmp, with a similar dance f

[Bug ada/113877] gnatchop -c puts gnat.adc in the current working directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113877 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/113807] [performance] bitset::set not using memset opportunity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113807 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e7ae13a858f36031b8fd3aa07362752ff2b19b2e commit r14-9002-ge7ae13a858f36031b8fd3aa07362752ff2b19b2e Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/113806] [performance] bitset::operator>>= unnecessarily sanitizes the high-word

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113806 --- Comment #1 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf883e6428a545d091319c8b71fcfb35e7dd7084 commit r14-9003-gbf883e6428a545d091319c8b71fcfb35e7dd7084 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/113811] std::rotate does 64-bit signed division

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113811 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4d819db7f229a23cb15ef68f310e0bb51d201c45 commit r14-9001-g4d819db7f229a23cb15ef68f310e0bb51d201c45 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/99117] [11/12/13/14 Regression] cannot accumulate std::valarray

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99117 --- Comment #23 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b58f0e5216a3053486e7f1aa96c3f2443b14d630 commit r14-9000-gb58f0e5216a3053486e7f1aa96c3f2443b14d630 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/87744] Some valid instantiations of linear_congruential_engine produce compiler errors when __int128 isn't available

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87744 --- Comment #15 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c9ce332b557bb95987d038d98ea929cdfd1eae1d commit r14-8998-gc9ce332b557bb95987d038d98ea929cdfd1eae1d Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug ada/113877] gnatchop -c puts gnat.adc in the current working directory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113877 --- Comment #3 from simon at pushface dot org --- I’ve now found the related documentation[1]. I think the conclusion is that gnatchop is working-as-designed, and that this PR should be marked WONTFIX (or INVALID), as seems best. Sorry for the

[Bug c++/113802] gcc rejects auto f(this auto self...) { }

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113802 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-02-15 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c++/113802] gcc rejects auto f(this auto self...) { }

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113802 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/113910] [12/13 Regression] Factor 15 slowdown compiling AMDGPUDisassembler.cpp on SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113910 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- OK, thanks for checking. Btw, -ftime-report for GCC 11 has different bottle-necks meanwhile fixed: tree PTA : 1.66 ( 3%) tree SSA incremental : 31.86 ( 61%)

[Bug fortran/113928] New: Aliasing of pointer in expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113928 Bug ID: 113928 Summary: Aliasing of pointer in expression Product: gcc Version: 11.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug target/113652] [14 regression] Failed bootstrap on ppc unrecognized opcode: `lfiwzx' with -mcpu=7450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113652 --- Comment #17 from Erhard F. --- Sidenote: Interestingly GCC 14 builds fine with -mcpu=970 -mtune=970 despite the PowerPC G5 (aka. 970, POWER4+) is before ISA 2.06 and not being able to use -mvsx either. I used Gentoo snapshot gcc-14.0.1_pre2

[Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113907 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug other/113927] New: [avr-tiny] Sets up a stack-frame even for trivial code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113927 Bug ID: 113927 Summary: [avr-tiny] Sets up a stack-frame even for trivial code Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug middle-end/112639] Incorrect handling of __builtin_c[lt]zg argument side-effects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112639 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/50440] 128 bit unsigned int subtraction generates too many register moves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50440 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sayle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug testsuite/113899] Vect module test failures while running on remote host due to default dg-do set to compile and additional-sources being used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113899 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to sadineniharish8446 from comment #6) > Also as you said in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113899#c3 > (Maybe the run testcases are failing but you might not be noticing that.), > I

[Bug testsuite/113899] Vect module test failures while running on remote host due to default dg-do set to compile and additional-sources being used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113899 --- Comment #6 from sadineniharish8446 at gmail dot com --- After adding given patch, vect-simd-clone-10.c & vect-simd-clone-12.c test case were not running the below error observed in gcc.sum, ERROR: tcl error sourcing /poky/build-st/tmp/work-s

[Bug target/31679] Incorrect result of multiplication long long by 0xFFFFFFFFLL constant.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31679 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7) > HWI is always 64bit these days so I doubt this can be reproduced. Plus The tree level uses wide_int so maybe this was fixed

[Bug tree-optimization/113567] ICE: SSA corruption: Unable to coalesce ssa_names 1 and 3 which are marked as MUST COALESCE. with _BitInt() and computed goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113567 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/113567] ICE: SSA corruption: Unable to coalesce ssa_names 1 and 3 which are marked as MUST COALESCE. with _BitInt() and computed goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113567 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:baa40971d1600672f3a1abf688905a70cf655c92 commit r14-8995-gbaa40971d1600672f3a1abf688905a70cf655c92 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: T

[Bug tree-optimization/113783] ICE: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5455 with -O -mavx512f and _BitInt() in memcpy()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113783 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #15 from Tamar Christina --- and just -O3 -march=armv8-a+sve

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #14 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13) > I didn't add STMT_VINFO_SLP_VECT_ONLY, I'm quite sure we can now do both SLP > of masked loads and stores, so yes, STMT_VINFO_SLP_VECT_ONLY (when we formed

[Bug libstdc++/113074] std::to_address should be SFINAE safe

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113074 --- Comment #18 from Jonathan Wakely --- See http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-active.html#submit_issue

[Bug middle-end/111156] [14 Regression] aarch64 aarch64/sve/mask_struct_store_4.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- I didn't add STMT_VINFO_SLP_VECT_ONLY, I'm quite sure we can now do both SLP of masked loads and stores, so yes, STMT_VINFO_SLP_VECT_ONLY (when we formed a DR group of stmts we cannot combine without SLP a

[Bug target/113856] `(vect64 float){1.0f, 0}` code generation could just be `fmov sN, 1.0f`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113856 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I should note that the one place where `{1.0, 0.0}` shows up is the use with complex :). I found it on accident while understanding why I was getting a failure with `libgomp.c-c++-common/reduction-*.c` where

[Bug middle-end/113921] Output register of an "asm volatile goto" is incorrectly clobbered/discarded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113921 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- *** Bug 107385 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/107385] [asm goto] "=r" vs "+r" for outputs along indirect edges

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107385 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/113921] Output register of an "asm volatile goto" is incorrectly clobbered/discarded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113921 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener --- So just to say all versions seem to be affected and the issue is just latent because of the rev we bisected to.

<    1   2