[Bug analyzer/99771] Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4bb1bd60a9fd1bed36092a990aa5fed5d45bfa6 commit r11-7941-ge4bb1bd60a9fd1bed36092a990aa5fed5d45bfa6 Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug c++/99851] Warn about operator new that takes std::nothrow_t but is potentially-throwing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- And just to be clear, this should apply to operator new and operator new[]. The examples above both use the array form, but there's no reason this shouldn't apply to the single object form too.

[Bug middle-end/72826] bad pretty-printing of decl *((void*)& x +offset) for uninitialized structure field (ESRA)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72826 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/73550] Another wrong -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning in switch statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73550 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Known to

[Bug c++/99859] New: constexpr evaluation with member function is incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859 Bug ID: 99859 Summary: constexpr evaluation with member function is incorrect Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/99859] constexpr evaluation with member function is incorrect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99859 --- Comment #1 from Luke Dalessandro --- It was pointed out that it _also_ works if I change > static_assert(foo()); to > constexpr bool b = foo(); > static_assert(b); static_assert(foo());

[Bug analyzer/99771] Analyzer diagnostics should not say ""

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99771 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- The above patch fixes some of the occurrences of the bug (due to (b)), but not those due to (a), so keeping this bug open.

[Bug c++/99445] [11 Regression] ICE in hashtab_chk_error, at hash-table.c:137 since r11-7011-g6e0a231a4aa2407b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99445 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/99851] Warn about operator new that takes std::nothrow_t but is potentially-throwing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99851 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #1) > Confirmed, thanks! Just to make sure I understand: we want a warning for > the operator new declaration (irrespective of its definition) because the >

[Bug middle-end/78081] -Wmaybe-initialized false-alarm regression for Emacs regex.c (jump threading fallout)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78081 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org Known to

[Bug middle-end/78370] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78370 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 6.3.0, 7.0.1,

[Bug middle-end/19430] taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning (virtual PHI with MEM)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19430 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||scott.d.phillips at intel dot com ---

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 78370, which changed state. Bug 78370 Summary: taking address of a var causes missing uninitialized warning https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78370 What|Removed |Added

[Bug middle-end/78391] g++ (any version) at O0 (for O1, O2, O3 is ok) doesn't warn when class members are used uninitialized.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78391 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.0, 7.3.0, 8.3.0,

[Bug middle-end/99857] [11 Regression] FAIL: libgomp.c/declare-variant-1.c (test for excess errors) by r11-7926

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99857 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/99861] New: [modules] ICE in hashtab_chk_error

ropriate. Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. g++ (GCC) 11.0.1 20210331 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warr

[Bug fortran/99840] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_matmul, at fortran/simplify.c:4777

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99840 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7cef070bf43bfb3f3d77bac42eadea06c4b0281 commit r11-7943-gd7cef070bf43bfb3f3d77bac42eadea06c4b0281 Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/99856] [9/10/11 Regression] Alpha Compositing auto vectorization regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99856 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-04-01 Component|c

[Bug c++/99737] [modules] malloc(): smallbin double linked list corrupted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99737 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Lelyakin --- Today's sequence is: /usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header tuple /usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20 -fmodules-ts -x c++-system-header set /usr/local/bin/g++ -std=c++20

<    1   2   3