[Bug c++/111159] New: [13 Regression] False positive -Wdangling-reference

Component: c++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel at constexpr dot org Target Milestone: --- GCC 13.2.0 as well as git from today report a false positive -Wdangling-reference warning for the following C++ code: struct A { int * i; int &am

[Bug tree-optimization/107129] New: [13 Regression] False positive -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O2 or -O3

: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel at constexpr dot org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 53652 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53652=edit Reduced testc

[Bug tree-optimization/97953] [9/10 Regression] ICE (segfault) during GIMPLE pass: loopdone compiling libgcc/config/libbid/bid128_fma.c:190:1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97953 --- Comment #29 from Daniel Scharrer --- Hi, shouldn't this be Known to fail 10.3.**1** Known to work 10.3.**2**

[Bug tree-optimization/103986] New: Miscompilation with -O2 -funswitch-loops and __builtin_unreachable in ternary operator

Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel at constexpr dot org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 52166 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52166=edit Redu

[Bug tree-optimization/96447] False positive -Wstringop-overflow with -O3 due to loop unrolling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96447 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Scharrer --- For warnings enabled by something like -fanalyzer this might be reasonable but for a warning I enabled by default (not even requiring -Wall) the bar should ideally be a bit higher.

[Bug other/96447] New: False positive -Wstringop-overflow with -O3

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel at constexpr dot org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 48990 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48990=edit test.c The attached reduced test case results in the following false positive warn

[Bug libstdc++/87618] [9 Regression] Missing symbol for std::__cxx11::basic_stringbuf, std::allocator >::basic_stringbuf()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87618 --- Comment #4 from Daniel Scharrer --- Thanks, everything works for me now.

[Bug libstdc++/87618] New: Missing symbol for std::__cxx11::basic_stringbuf, std::allocator >::basic_stringbuf()

MED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel at constexpr dot org Target Milestone: --- $ cat stringbuf.cpp #include int main() { std::stringbuf sb; return 0; }

[Bug libstdc++/61269] type_traits includes cstdint inside std namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61269 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Scharrer daniel at constexpr dot org --- Yes, after your fix everything works with Clang.

[Bug libstdc++/61269] New: type_traits includes cstdint inside std namespace

Component: libstdc++ Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: daniel at constexpr dot org Partial diff from commit f2b58c906cf64f3e082bda9808b9f049bb71d5b4: --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/type_traits @@ -41,6 +41,15 @@ namespace std

[Bug libstdc++/56282] New: [4.8 regression] std::basic_ioschar broken with -std=c++11 (undefined reference)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56282 Bug #: 56282 Summary: [4.8 regression] std::basic_ioschar broken with -std=c++11 (undefined reference) Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown

[Bug other/56273] New: [4.8 regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273 Bug #: 56273 Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug other/56273] [4.8 regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273 --- Comment #1 from Daniel Scharrer daniel at constexpr dot org 2013-02-10 07:07:40 UTC --- The same code and command-line arguments do not produce a warning in gcc 4.7.2, 4.6.3, 4.5.4 and clang 3.2 as well as clang's static analyzer.