[Bug gcov-profile/112806] Profile-Guided Optimization (PGO) policy regarding explicit user optimization hint behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112806 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/112808] New: Consider enabling _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS checks by default for debug builds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112808 Bug ID: 112808 Summary: Consider enabling _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS checks by default for debug builds Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/112773] [14 Regression] RISC-V ICE: in force_align_down_and_div, at poly-int.h:1828 on rv32gcv_zvl256b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112773 --- Comment #8 from Robin Dapp --- Thanks for the testcase. It looks pretty similar to the situation why I introduced the bitmask extract in the first place and I don't think that's the root cause. As last time the problem is that the generic

[Bug libgcc/109289] Conflicting types for built-in functions in libgcc/emutls.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109289 --- Comment #3 from Florian Weimer --- Jan, do you actually experience a build failure? The part you quoted only shows warnings. Thomas, the safe thing to do would be to use __builtin_calloc and __builtin_realloc in those spots because it

[Bug bootstrap/79792] configuring a nvptx-none build with --program-suffix=-7 results in a misnamed installed binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79792 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME

[Bug middle-end/112771] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower0 ICE: in build_bitint_type, at tree.cc:7178 with _BitInt(65535) and division by zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112771 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/112770] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower0 ICE: verify_gimple failed: statement marked for throw in middle of block with -fnon-call-exceptions and _BitInt(128)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112770 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug modula2/92148] gm2: race condition building gm2 on trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92148 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME Status|WAITING

[Bug middle-end/112770] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower0 ICE: verify_gimple failed: statement marked for throw in middle of block with -fnon-call-exceptions and _BitInt(128)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112770 --- Comment #1 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b1fe98dee21773b9d908469effe2580567b903fb commit r14-6051-gb1fe98dee21773b9d908469effe2580567b903fb Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug other/91209] gm2 bootstrap comparison failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91209 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/112771] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower0 ICE: in build_bitint_type, at tree.cc:7178 with _BitInt(65535) and division by zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112771 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9bfebcb1b7ae4e7160644f2104424d6bab4a23f7 commit r14-6050-g9bfebcb1b7ae4e7160644f2104424d6bab4a23f7 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/112807] New: ICE: SIGSEGV in contains_struct_check (tree.h:3747) with _BitInt() at -O1 and above

ary-trunk-r14-6048-20231201170246-g6563d6767ed-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64 Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 14.0.0 20231201 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug libgcc/109289] Conflicting types for built-in functions in libgcc/emutls.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109289 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-12-01 CC|

[Bug modula2/93575] the modula2 frontend fails to build with a profiled bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93575 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC|

[Bug target/102260] amdgcn offload compiler fails to configure, not matching target directive's target id

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102260 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/91035] [11/12/13/14 Regression] gotools fails to build on s390x-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91035 Matthias Klose changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/112698] gcc r14-5617-gb8592186611 introduces regressions in bfloat16_vector_typecheck_1.c for cortex-m0 and cortex-m3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112698 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug gcov-profile/112806] Profile-Guided Optimization (PGO) policy regarding explicit user optimization hint behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112806 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Zaitsev --- > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index-fprofile-arcs-1 I already read this and still do not understand the actual behavior. If PGO profiles show that the branch is

[Bug gcov-profile/112806] Profile-Guided Optimization (PGO) policy regarding explicit user optimization hint behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112806 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > [[likely]]/__builtin_expect is kinda of documented: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index- > fprofile-arcs-1 > >

[Bug gcov-profile/112806] Profile-Guided Optimization (PGO) policy regarding explicit user optimization hint behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112806 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- [[likely]]/__builtin_expect is kinda of documented: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-13.2.0/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#index-fprofile-arcs-1 Everything else is just a hint.

[Bug c++/103524] [meta-bug] modules issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103524 Bug 103524 depends on bug 112805, which changed state. Bug 112805 Summary: Failed to compile C++20 code with usage of modules https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112805 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/112805] Failed to compile C++20 code with usage of modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112805 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug c++/112588] ICE in make_decl_rtl when returning str literal when string header imported in module

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112588 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ma.anshukov at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/112805] Failed to compile C++20 code with usage of modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112805 --- Comment #1 from Mikhail Anshukov --- Created attachment 56750 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56750=edit Bug report generated by g++

[Bug c/82919] Docs don't mention -Wimplicit-int is enabled in C99 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82919 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug c++/112805] New: Failed to compile C++20 code with usage of modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112805 Bug ID: 112805 Summary: Failed to compile C++20 code with usage of modules Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug target/112777] [14 Regression] profiled bootstrap fails on powerpc-linux-gnu, undefined references to __atomic_fetch_add_8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112777 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sebastian Huber : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4b8078142ee816e2bd484358b935ba1116ed9931 commit r14-6046-g4b8078142ee816e2bd484358b935ba1116ed9931 Author: Sebastian Huber

[Bug other/44209] [meta-bug] Some warnings are not linked to diagnostics options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44209 Bug 44209 depends on bug 106537, which changed state. Bug 106537 Summary: GCC doesn't support -W[no-]compare-distinct-pointer-types https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/106537] GCC doesn't support -W[no-]compare-distinct-pointer-types

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106537 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c/108224] Suggest stdlib.h header for rand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108224 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c/111400] Missing return sanitization only works in C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111400 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- (In reply to David Brown from comment #4) > (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #3) > > You already have -W[error=]return-type. > > Yes, and that is what I normally use - I am a big fan of gcc's static >

[Bug c/96284] Outdated C features should be made errors with newer standards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284 --- Comment #16 from David Brown --- Thank you for making these changes. There's always a trade-off between supporting code that "has always compiled fine and works in testing", and making it harder for people to write new poor quality code

[Bug middle-end/112750] wrong code with _BitInt(256) and above with __builtin_sub_overflow_p() at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112750 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/112750] wrong code with _BitInt(256) and above with __builtin_sub_overflow_p() at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112750 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:364332658ef790d09d250db39c5b13e27c3543f1 commit r14-6042-g364332658ef790d09d250db39c5b13e27c3543f1 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug target/112801] [14] RISC-V vector: failure to mask top bits during type conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112801 --- Comment #3 from JuzheZhong --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > I think wrong-code should be high-priority ;) Oh. I see. Sorry. I thought it was the previous RVV shift ISA issue. since I saw c(g[1] >> 32); Confirm it is

[Bug c/96284] Outdated C features should be made errors with newer standards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/96284] Outdated C features should be made errors with newer standards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||108476, 85678 See

[Bug c/91093] Error on implicit int by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91093 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug c/106416] -Wint-conversion should be an error, not a pedwarn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106416 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug c/91092] Error on implicit function declarations by default

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91092 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug target/112804] ICE in aarch64 crosscompiler in plus_constant, at explow.cc:102 with -mabi=ilp32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112804 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Looks like -finline-stringops is not correc5 for the case where ptrmode != Pmode. I might take a look next week or the week afterwards. I also suspect you might hit it on x32 also.

[Bug target/112804] New: ICE in aarch64 crosscompiler in plus_constant, at explow.cc:102

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112804 Bug ID: 112804 Summary: ICE in aarch64 crosscompiler in plus_constant, at explow.cc:102 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/112788] [14 regression] ICEs in fold_range, at range-op.cc:206 after r14-5972-gea19de921b01a6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112788 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

<    1   2