[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 --- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > > Please stop the vandalism. This is NOT a dup. > > How is it not? > (unsigned char)0x80 vs (unsigned

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > > > Please stop the vandalism. This is NOT a dup. > >

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- I just tried this on GCC 3.4.6 (before SSA) and get: #APP ori 0,0,$-32768 #NO_APP for f and #APP ori 0,0,$32768 #NO_APP for g. In the other bug report I pointed out when this changed in

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > Please stop the vandalism. This is NOT a dup. Of course this is not "how it always worked". We used to have RTL way earlier in the pipeline already.

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > Please stop the vandalism. This is NOT a dup. How is it not? (unsigned char)0x80 vs (unsigned short)0x8000 that is the only difference between the two bug

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/121478] ICE in fold_convert_loc due to null pointer type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121478 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||13.1.0, 14.3.0, 15.1.0 Stat

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #25 from Segher Boessenkool --- The number is an integer constant. 32768 is 32768, not -32768. The value got that way (potentially, but not in this case even) because it was cast to un unsigned short. All of that is done way before

[Bug c/121478] New: [ICE] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2670

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121478 Bug ID: 121478 Summary: [ICE] internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2670 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug tree-optimization/119977] [16 regression] Bootstrap comparison failure with -march=znver4 -ggdb3 and bootstrap-lto since r16-152-g4f7b3c24112016

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119977 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/121468] [16 regression] compiler hang at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121468 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-08-09 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/121465] [15/16 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121465 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug target/83466] Wrong TLS GD sequence for ILP32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83466 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |SUSPENDED --- Comment #10 from Sam James --

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #24 from Andrew Pinski --- https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/199908021922.maa03...@zack.bitmover.com/ See https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/org0gb1tmu@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/ also.

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #22) > The last time trunc_int_for_mode changed for the sign extendness was in > 2001, by g:5b0d91c39237 . > > This changed it to sign extend it for all modes rather

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski --- The last time trunc_int_for_mode changed for the sign extendness was in 2001, by g:5b0d91c39237 . This changed it to sign extend it for all modes rather than just 32bits mode (while on a 64bit host; back wh

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #21 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #20) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18) > > Simple answer: > > When the INTEGER_CST (unsigned short) is expanded into a const_int, the sign > > extend

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #20 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18) > Simple answer: > When the INTEGER_CST (unsigned short) is expanded into a const_int, the sign > extend happens due to the rules of const_int. What does th

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #19 from Segher Boessenkool --- So, apparently force_reg was called here, and it went way down from there. It never should have ended up there, but it is a very common thing, there are tens of ways to get there, no clue what happened

[Bug testsuite/116757] check_effective_target_fileio uses deprecated function resulting in UNSUPPORTED

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116757 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- libstdc++ has its own check_v3_target_fileio with a fixed file, no tmpnam.

[Bug target/91981] Speed degradation because of inlining a register clobbering function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91981 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|15.3|15.0 Resolution|---

[Bug d/121477] d: internal compiler error: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.cc:3445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121477 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug d/121477] d: internal compiler error: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.cc:3445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121477 --- Comment #1 from Iain Buclaw --- The d_mark_addressable routine that sets TREE_ADDRESSABLE in the D front-end does not handle DECL_BIT_FIELD.

[Bug d/121477] New: d: internal compiler error: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.cc:3445

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121477 Bug ID: 121477 Summary: d: internal compiler error: in expand_asm_stmt, at cfgexpand.cc:3445 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/107772] function prologue generated even though it's only needed in an unlikely path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107772 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- So for aarch64, this is fully fixed. For x86_64, it was improved in GCC 15 to produce: ``` f(int*, int*): cmp rdi, rsi je .L10 pushrbx mov rbx, rdi s

[Bug target/110008] shrink wrapping could be improved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110008 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug analyzer/94713] Analyzer is buggy on uninitialized pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94713 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/121422] [16 Regression] wrong code for proping zero incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121422 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/118946] Missed optimization: GCC reserves stack space for optimized-out variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118946 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:899e7284bfa0b736165c3d9d5c18d5d883c5cbfb commit r16-3094-g899e7284bfa0b736165c3d9d5c18d5d883c5cbfb Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Su

[Bug tree-optimization/121422] [16 Regression] wrong code for proping zero incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121422 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:899e7284bfa0b736165c3d9d5c18d5d883c5cbfb commit r16-3094-g899e7284bfa0b736165c3d9d5c18d5d883c5cbfb Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Su

[Bug tree-optimization/118946] Missed optimization: GCC reserves stack space for optimized-out variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118946 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0 Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/121364] [meta-bug] copy prop for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121364 Bug 121364 depends on bug 120599, which changed state. Bug 120599 Summary: [16 Regression] Copy prop for aggregates loses non-call exception https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120599 What|Removed |Ad

[Bug tree-optimization/120599] [16 Regression] Copy prop for aggregates loses non-call exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120599 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/118946] Missed optimization: GCC reserves stack space for optimized-out variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118946 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > Fixed. I will file a different bug for the non-zero case. Actually the non-zero case is already handled I forgot :).

[Bug tree-optimization/121364] [meta-bug] copy prop for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121364 Bug 121364 depends on bug 118946, which changed state. Bug 118946 Summary: Missed optimization: GCC reserves stack space for optimized-out variable https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118946 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/120599] [16 Regression] Copy prop for aggregates loses non-call exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120599 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:644a264d165fa6349b944ddb4158dd7f77d7f49f commit r16-3095-g644a264d165fa6349b944ddb4158dd7f77d7f49f Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Su

[Bug tree-optimization/121474] [16 Regression] investigate only having alias walk in forwprop1 or at -O2+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121474 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- The biggest things the alias walk happens over for 3/4 is clobbers. Maybe the limit for 3/4 should be 0 but clobbers don't count towards the limit. For an example before forwprop4 in highway's compare_test.

[Bug diagnostics/116253] RFE: support for nested diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116253 --- Comment #15 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d3fe5a560f0bcca8e11ec0f9bb916f59615f51d8 commit r16-3092-gd3fe5a560f0bcca8e11ec0f9bb916f59615f51d8 Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/121474] [16 Regression] investigate only having alias walk in forwprop1 or at -O2+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121474 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-08-08 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug target/121473] MIPS builds silently ignore -static-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121473 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Cristian Morales Vega from comment #3) > Thanks. > > FWIW MIPS seems to have an extra problem through libatomic. As far as I can > tell, libatomic.a is always built without -fpic, isn't it? The

[Bug libstdc++/121476] New: std::clamp is marked nodiscard, but std::ranges::clamp is not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121476 Bug ID: 121476 Summary: std::clamp is marked nodiscard, but std::ranges::clamp is not Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/121475] New: Missed finalization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121475 Bug ID: 121475 Summary: Missed finalization Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee:

[Bug target/121473] MIPS builds silently ignore -static-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121473 --- Comment #3 from Cristian Morales Vega --- Thanks. FWIW MIPS seems to have an extra problem through libatomic. As far as I can tell, libatomic.a is always built without -fpic, isn't it? There is not even an option to make it use it? It may b

[Bug tree-optimization/121474] [16 Regression] investigate only having alias walk in forwprop1 or at -O2+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121474 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Or do alias walks in all instances, just use different limits between them > (so only a few vdefs in most passes and more in one or two)? Yes that works too. I

[Bug target/106356] static-pie for arm not implemented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106356 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/121473] MIPS builds silently ignore -static-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121473 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|MIPS and ARM builds |MIPS builds silently ignore

[Bug tree-optimization/121474] [16 Regression] investigate only having alias walk in forwprop1 or at -O2+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121474 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/121474] New: [16 Regression] investigate only having alias walk in forwprop1 or at -O2+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121474 Bug ID: 121474 Summary: [16 Regression] investigate only having alias walk in forwprop1 or at -O2+ Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: com

[Bug tree-optimization/121405] [13/14/15 Regression] Another missed VN via a copy (but via an int copy)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121405 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- This definitely helped highway. I still see some extra BIT_FIELD_REF but I am not 100% sure as I forgot to turn on uid on the dump so I don't know which variable is being assigned to which one. If I can get

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski --- Simple answer: When the INTEGER_CST (unsigned short) is expanded into a const_int, the sign extend happens due to the rules of const_int.

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool --- When you cast to *signed* short instead, you get -32768, at tree level already. And that is correct. This is not the problem here. With the "unsigned short" code, f() here, you get +32768 at tree leve

[Bug middle-end/121389] [15 regression] Failed musttail with -fsanitize=address -O0 (error: cannot tail-call: return value changed after call)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121389 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #17 f

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool --- There _is_ no const_int there yet, btw. There is no RTL at all yet!

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool --- What is this "TYPE_MODE"? Nothing here has type short_int, HImode: we have an integer constant value, 32768, which is cast to "unsigned short", which is a no-op: that results in an integer constant 327

[Bug middle-end/121389] [15 regression] Failed musttail with -fsanitize=address -O0 (error: cannot tail-call: return value changed after call)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121389 --- Comment #16 from Carlos Galvez --- Thanks for the fix, I've tested on my end and now everything compiles without issues!

[Bug target/121473] MIPS and ARM builds silently ignore -static-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121473 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/120620] [13/14/15 Regression] Internal Compiler Error in tree.cc, Line #11240

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/120620] [13/14/15 Regression] Internal Compiler Error in tree.cc, Line #11240

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:06f193f116285e4e7f00cea0e055f42e340d2c83 commit r13-9827-g06f193f116285e4e7f00cea0e055f42e340d2c83 Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #14

[Bug c++/120620] [13/14/15 Regression] Internal Compiler Error in tree.cc, Line #11240

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120620 --- Comment #10 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b471cfe61cc586877b40ed3c2dd39583d9ef2e5a commit r14-11942-gb471cfe61cc586877b40ed3c2dd39583d9ef2e5a Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > > > Note this is documented in the internals documentat

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #11) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > > Note this is documented in the internals documentation. > > What is? "We have a bug here"? I doubt it.

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #11 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > Note this is documented in the internals documentation. What is? "We have a bug here"? I doubt it.

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 121470 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 121470 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED Resolution|DUPLIC

[Bug tree-optimization/121465] [15/16 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121465 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|REOPENED

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/121466] [15/16 Regression] Type mismatch, passing global function (Regression gfortran 15.1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121466 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.3 Summary|Type mismatch,

[Bug tree-optimization/121460] `switch (v + 20) case` should optimize away the addition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121460 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > More interesting for multiplications I guess. So from my understanding this shows up in rust code; I am not 100% sure if gccrust produces the switch statement

[Bug tree-optimization/121468] [16 regression] compiler hang at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121468 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #2 from Sam Jam

[Bug target/121473] MIPS and ARM builds silently ignore -static-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121473 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug middle-end/121467] Standard Pattern name documentation is unordered and lacks grouping

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121467 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug debug/121411] ctf type size truncated for large data types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121411 --- Comment #5 from David Faust --- Yeah, looks like there are multiple inconsistencies with uint32/unsigned int versus unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT when fetching values from the DWARF DIEs. The issues with arrays is one, bit_size in gen_ctf_sou_type

[Bug driver/121473] New: MIPS and ARM builds silently ignore -static-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121473 Bug ID: 121473 Summary: MIPS and ARM builds silently ignore -static-pie Product: gcc Version: 15.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug jit/121437] [15/16 regression] Issues seen in gcc/testsuite/jit/test-types.c with bfloat16 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121437 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- (In reply to Antoni from comment #3) > So, should we move this part of the test in a new file that is only executed > on x86-64? That won't help with the other issue (HAVE_BFmode), that'll need a separate fix.

[Bug jit/121436] Issue seen in gcc/testsuite/jit/test-signed-char.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121436 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- (In reply to Antoni from comment #1) > This test passes for me on x86-64. > The goal of this patch was to have the correct sign for char so that some > x86-64 SIMD intrinsics would work IIRC, so -fsigned-char is

[Bug target/121471] New: arm: mcrr2 and mrrc2 were obsolted in arm8-a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121471 Bug ID: 121471 Summary: arm: mcrr2 and mrrc2 were obsolted in arm8-a Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/85344] Constant constraint check sign extends unsigned constant input operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|thomas.preudhomme at celest dot fr |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/85344] constants with the sign bit set causes sign extension which is unexpected but not documented in the user documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Constant constraint check |constants with the sign bit

[Bug tree-optimization/121468] [16 regression] compiler hang at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121468 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |16.0 Keywords|

[Bug fortran/121472] New: ICE in gimplify_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121472 Bug ID: 121472 Summary: ICE in gimplify_expr Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran Assignee:

[Bug middle-end/85344] Constant constraint check sign extends unsigned constant input operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85344 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug middle-end/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is handled unexpectedly; due to the way const_int is handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/121471] arm: mcrr2 and mrrc2 were obsolted in arm8-a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121471 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Target Milestone|-

[Bug rtl-optimization/121470] (unsigned short)0x8000 is expanded incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||documentation --- Comment #1 from Andre

[Bug rtl-optimization/121470] New: (unsigned short)0x8000 is expanded incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121470 Bug ID: 121470 Summary: (unsigned short)0x8000 is expanded incorrectly Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: r

[Bug tree-optimization/50856] ARM: suboptimal code for absolute difference calculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50856 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/121463] Suboptimal scalar absdiff codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121463 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/121463] Suboptimal scalar absdiff codegen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121463 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/121466] Type mismatch, passing global function (Regression gfortran 15.1)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121466 kargls at comcast dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargls at comcast dot net --

[Bug c++/121469] Combination of out, trunc, binary and noreplace is surprising

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121469 --- Comment #3 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr --- Created attachment 62085 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62085&action=edit Potential patch Untested patch

[Bug c++/121469] New: Combination of out, trunc, binary and noreplace is surprising

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121469 Bug ID: 121469 Summary: Combination of out, trunc, binary and noreplace is surprising Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/121469] Combination of out, trunc, binary and noreplace is surprising

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121469 --- Comment #4 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr --- I agree that using trunc and noreplace is a little bit contradictory. But the implementation already handles this in some other cases, so for consistency I think that something like the

[Bug c++/121469] Combination of out, trunc, binary and noreplace is surprising

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121469 --- Comment #1 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr --- Created attachment 62084 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=62084&action=edit testcase Testcase that shows the bug. Compile and provide some non exiting file name.

[Bug c++/121469] Combination of out, trunc, binary and noreplace is surprising

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121469 --- Comment #2 from Theodore.Papadopoulo at inria dot fr --- Try the attached test case: mururoa-> g++ -g -std=c++23 test.cpp -o test mururoa-> ./test tutu Cannot open file tutu for writing

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 121351, which changed state. Bug 121351 Summary: [15 Regression] Ambiguous resolution of constrained overloads imported from base class https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121351 What|Removed

[Bug c++/121351] [15 Regression] Ambiguous resolution of constrained overloads imported from base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121351 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

  1   2   3   4   >