[Bug c/107170] New: ICE on valid code: in as_a, at value-range.h:381

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107170 Bug ID: 107170 Summary: ICE on valid code: in as_a, at value-range.h:381 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/106765] New: ICE (invalid code) in tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106765 Bug ID: 106765 Summary: ICE (invalid code) in tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.cc Product: gcc

[Bug c/106764] New: ICE on invalid code in tree check: expected function_type or method_type, have error_mark in gimplify_call_expr, at gimplify.cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106764 Bug ID: 106764 Summary: ICE on invalid code in tree check: expected function_type or method_type, have error_mark in gimplify_call_expr, at gimplify.cc Product: gcc

[Bug c/106560] ICE after conflicting types of redeclaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106560 Karine EM changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k.even-mendoza at imperial dot ac.

[Bug c/100525] ICE: tree check: expected class ‘type’, have ‘exceptional’ (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100525 Karine EM changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k.even-mendoza at imperial dot ac.

[Bug middle-end/105910] ICE: with -O1 optimization level and code calling __builtin_return_address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105910 --- Comment #2 from Karine EM --- It is probably the case: gcc-10 just compiles the program (as it is a UB) which crashes with "Abort" when trying to actually run this program; llvm returns an error: test4.c:4:13: error: argument value 524288

[Bug c/105910] New: ICE: with -O1 optimization level and code calling __builtin_return_address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105910 Bug ID: 105910 Summary: ICE: with -O1 optimization level and code calling __builtin_return_address Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c/105232] New: ICE in tree_to_poly_int64, at tree.cc:3224

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105232 Bug ID: 105232 Summary: ICE in tree_to_poly_int64, at tree.cc:3224 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/104402] New: ICE on valid code: in do_jump_1, at dojump.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402 Bug ID: 104402 Summary: ICE on valid code: in do_jump_1, at dojump.c Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug middle-end/100536] ICE: in expand_call with large union (1GB) argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100536 Karine EM changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k.even-mendoza at imperial dot ac.

[Bug c/103818] New: ICE: in insert, at ipa-modref-tree.c:591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103818 Bug ID: 103818 Summary: ICE: in insert, at ipa-modref-tree.c:591 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/103816] New: ICE: in vect_build_slp_tree_2, at tree-vect-slp.c:1748

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103816 Bug ID: 103816 Summary: ICE: in vect_build_slp_tree_2, at tree-vect-slp.c:1748 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/103813] New: Crash in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 fold-const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103813 Bug ID: 103813 Summary: Crash in decompose, at wide-int.h:984 fold-const Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c/103493] New: gcc crash with Seg fault signal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103493 Bug ID: 103493 Summary: gcc crash with Seg fault signal Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug middle-end/102606] large array in a dead-code is not optimized away at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102606 --- Comment #4 from Karine EM --- That would make sense, and I think it is also what happens when compiling the example with Clang and -O0 since the compilation takes only a few seconds then.

[Bug c/102606] New: miscompilation of a program with large array in a dead-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102606 Bug ID: 102606 Summary: miscompilation of a program with large array in a dead-code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/99990] Crash in GCC-11/gimplify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0 --- Comment #2 from Karine EM --- GCC is from GitHub with this version bc21277 (was: Daily bump.) I compiled gcc-11 with gcc-10 (this gcc-10: gcc (Ubuntu 10.1.0-2ubuntu1~18.04) 10.1.0) With cmake version 3.13.4, gmp-6.1.0, isl-0.18, mpc-1.0.3,

[Bug c/99990] New: Crash in GCC-11/gimplify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=0 Bug ID: 0 Summary: Crash in GCC-11/gimplify Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee:

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #14 from Karine EM --- I did compile it that way: > gcc-10 -w -O2 r.c -pedantic -Wall -Wextra but got no warnings at all. Should I add any flag? Thanks!

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #12 from Karine EM --- Yes, I could do that (comment #7). But I reduce manually the program and the problem was indeed the scenario in comment #8 (not between functions, only different blocks, but I assume it is pretty much the

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #6 from Karine EM --- Created attachment 49945 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49945=edit Original large code that caused Seg-fault in GCC-10

[Bug c/98630] Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 --- Comment #5 from Karine EM --- This is an automatically reduced program. If GCC will give the Wuninitialized warning I can reduce the original program again, taking it into account. I attached the long program in case you find it helpful.

[Bug c/98630] New: Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98630 Bug ID: 98630 Summary: Seg-fault when using a goto after condition (if) Product: gcc Version: 10.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3