[Bug analyzer/102225] New: [12 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_int_cst, at analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:227

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225 Bug ID: 102225 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_int_cst, at analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:227 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/102224] [9/10/11/12 regession] wrong code for `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #7 from Gabriel Ravier --- Also, `-ffast-math` seems to "fix" this, since in that case the code is recognized as an ABS_EXPR pattern and as such results in the same code being emitted without the xor. Is there any reason this isn't

[Bug target/102224] [9/10/11/12 regession] wrong code for `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 Gabriel Ravier changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 regession] wrong code |[9/10/11/12 regession]

[Bug target/102224] [12 regession] wrong code for `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #5 from Gabriel Ravier --- Actually it seems to me like this is a GCC 9 regression, ever since this pattern exists: GCC 9, 10 and 11 emit the exact same faulty code.

[Bug target/102224] [12 regession] wrong code for `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- There was just a recent patch which touched this in the x86 backend.

[Bug target/102224] Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/102224] Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier --- Also seems like this might be unique to x86 as this compiles fine on Aarch64 (though while it doesn't try to do anything stupid like xoring the result with itself, it does still not optimize the XOR_SIGN

[Bug tree-optimization/102224] Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier --- (PS: by "x and y" I mean "the two arguments". If they're the same, GCC should obviously just optimize this to an abs as that's what it ends up being)

[Bug tree-optimization/102224] Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #1 from Gabriel Ravier --- (Note: this is a miscompile because it compiles as equivalent to `return 0;` as that's what `xorps xmm0, xmm0` will do)

[Bug tree-optimization/102224] New: Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 Bug ID: 102224 Summary: Incorrect compile on `x * copysign(1.0, x)` Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug tree-optimization/102178] [12 Regression] SPECFP 2006 470.lbm regressions on AMD Zen CPUs after r12-897-gde56f95afaaa22

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102178 --- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Verified 470.lbm doesn't show regression on Power8 with Ofast. runtime is 141 sec for r12-897, without that patch it is 142 sec.

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 --- Comment #3 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- phiopt4 and sink2 are doing reverse optimizations: pr102008.c.200t.phiopt4: Hoisting adjacent loads from 3 and 4 into 2: _6 = foo_4(D)->a; _5 = foo_4(D)->b; pr102008.c.202t.sink2:

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 --- Comment #2 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Confirmed if move the sink2 pass before phiopt4 could restore the previous instructons for this case: test: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc cmp w0, 1 ldp w0, w1, [x1]

[Bug tree-optimization/102216] [12 Regression] missed optimization causing Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||TREE --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/102216] [12 Regression] missed optimization causing Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|False positive |[12 Regression] missed

[Bug target/97142] __builtin_fmod not optimized on POWER

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97142 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Xiong Hu Luo : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:546ecb0054af302acf0839c7f3eb78598f8c0672 commit r12-3375-g546ecb0054af302acf0839c7f3eb78598f8c0672 Author: Xionghu Luo Date: Mon

[Bug testsuite/101902] [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/uninit-1.C has excess errors after r12-2898

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101902 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/102115] symbol address eliminated by the xtensa size optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102115 jcmvbkbc at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jcmvbkbc at gcc dot

[Bug tree-optimization/102134] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102134 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:74cb45e67d14624c3e2fafa99a8920d1866a5f0c commit r12-3372-g74cb45e67d14624c3e2fafa99a8920d1866a5f0c Author: Roger Sayle Date: Mon

[Bug target/102222] ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770)

--disable-systemtap --disable-valgrind-annotations --disable-vtable-verify --disable-libvtv --without-zstd --enable-lto --without-isl --disable-libsanitizer --disable-default-pie --enable-default-ssp Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 12.0.0 20210906 (experimental

[Bug tree-optimization/102216] False positive warray-bounds with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > The problem is dead code: > language_names_p_9 = [(void *)_4 + 24B]; > MEM[(const char * *)_4 + 24B] = ""; > MEM[(const char * *)_4 + 32B] = ""; >

[Bug c++/102223] no warning whel calling member function on dangling reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 --- Comment #1 from Federico Kircheis --- Sorry, I copied the wrong snippet, it should have been #include struct s{ s() noexcept; ~s(); int value() const noexcept; }; s foo() noexcept; int bar(){ const auto& v =

[Bug c++/102223] New: no warning whel calling member function on dangling reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 Bug ID: 102223 Summary: no warning whel calling member function on dangling reference Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libfortran/102111] Segfault with associate to derived type with allocatable component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102111 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/102222] ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #0) > The issue was originally observed on a native s390 machine > (s390-ibm-linux-gnu) but I ended up minimising the ICE using cvise via > cross. I hit the issue when

[Bug c++/96645] [9/10/11/12 Regression] std::variant default constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645 Eyal Rozenberg changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eyalroz1 at gmx dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/102199] is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 --- Comment #6 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > See PR 96645 and PR 101227 Ok. But does that explain why defining an explicit constructor cause g++ to accept the class as default-constructible?

[Bug c++/102199] is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 --- Comment #5 from Eyal Rozenberg --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > See PR 96645 and PR 101227 Ok, I

[Bug c/102222] ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 51418 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51418=edit build.log from compiling squashfs-tools-4.5

[Bug c/102222] New: ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 Bug ID: 10 Summary: ICE on s390 (internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2770) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/92065] [9/10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92065 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/46991] [OOP] polymorphic assumed-size actual arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46991 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/99819] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_defer_symbol_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/46691] Null pointer in template deduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46691 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0 commit r9-9712-gc8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0 Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug fortran/99819] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_defer_symbol_init, at fortran/trans-decl.c:841

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99819 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0 commit r9-9712-gc8cd1acae4c26929400fae0d7fb17cfef8c15be0 Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug fortran/99125] [9 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (gimplify.c:15068)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/20585] [meta-bug] Fortran 2003 support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20585 Bug 20585 depends on bug 93925, which changed state. Bug 93925 Summary: Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a procedure pointer as argument https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/93925] Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a procedure pointer as argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug fortran/93924] [OOP] ICE with procedure pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/99125] [9 Regression] ICE: gimplification failed (gimplify.c:15068)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99125 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e59c3c6f4c4f42a158d8ab936c995754bf22dee commit r9-9711-g3e59c3c6f4c4f42a158d8ab936c995754bf22dee Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug fortran/93925] Invalid memory reference upon call of a routine taking a procedure pointer as argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93925 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32 commit r9-9710-g49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32 Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug fortran/93924] [OOP] ICE with procedure pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93924 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32 commit r9-9710-g49cefbec30499da06f90912090bcc5eabdfefa32 Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug tree-optimization/96563] Failure to optimize loop with condition to simple arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96563 --- Comment #3 from Gabriel Ravier --- It seems like GCC does better for the unrolled case as of now on trunk and seemingly since GCC 11, though the operation is done in a different way due to `((unsigned)x <= 9) ? 8 : 4;` being expanded

[Bug c++/102201] Accepts invalid C++98 with nested class and sizeof of outer's non-static field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/93794] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_component_ref, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug tree-optimization/98350] Reassociation breaks FMA chains

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98350 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/70912] reassociation width needs to be aware of FMA, width of expression, and other architectural details

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70912 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug fortran/93794] [9 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_component_ref, at fortran/trans-expr.c:2497

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93794 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5bfb794ae1bef72e251b5aa7274e79b3034bb1bc commit r9-9709-g5bfb794ae1bef72e251b5aa7274e79b3034bb1bc Author: Paul Thomas

[Bug tree-optimization/56547] missed opportunity for FMA with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- >Not sure yet whether this is actually target specific. It is not.

[Bug tree-optimization/56547] [SH] missed opportunity for fmac with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/102219] fast-math inhibits fp contraction for a + b * a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Actually it is a dup of bug 56547. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 56547 ***

[Bug tree-optimization/56547] [SH] missed opportunity for fmac with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chtz at informatik dot uni-bremen.

[Bug middle-end/98429] Some FMA expressions are evaluated less efficiently when -ffast-math is active

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98429 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/91687] Fused multiply subtract not generated when same operand appears in multiplication and subtraction and -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91687 Bug 91687 depends on bug 86999, which changed state. Bug 86999 Summary: missed FMA optimization with -fassociative-math https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/56547] [SH] missed opportunity for fmac with -ffast-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||asd0025 at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug tree-optimization/86999] missed FMA optimization with -fassociative-math

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86999 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/98429] Some FMA expressions are evaluated less efficiently when -ffast-math is active

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98429 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkretz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/102219] fast-math inhibits fp contraction for a + b * a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug c++/102221] New: Missed optimizations for algorithms over std::unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221 Bug ID: 102221 Summary: Missed optimizations for algorithms over std::unique_ptr Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/102220] New: Conversion from cv void* to object-type* not rejected during constant evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102220 Bug ID: 102220 Summary: Conversion from cv void* to object-type* not rejected during constant evaluation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/102206] amd zen hosts running zen-optimized gcc: gimplification ICE after r10-7284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102206 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/92505] Using mutable in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92505 Arthur O'Dwyer changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com ---

[Bug tree-optimization/102219] New: fast-math inhibits fp contraction for a + b * a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102219 Bug ID: 102219 Summary: fast-math inhibits fp contraction for a + b * a Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug c++/102201] Accepts invalid C++98 with nested class and sizeof of outer's non-static field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102201 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/102199] is_default_constructible incorrect for an inner type with NSDMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102199 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- See PR 96645 and PR 101227

[Bug c++/100470] std::is_nothrow_move_constructible incorrect behavior for explicitly defaulted members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100470 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ --- Comment #1 from Jonathan

[Bug libstdc++/51452] [DR 2116] is_nothrow_.*constructible bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452 --- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14) > This is http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#2116 so let's > suspend this. Updated link: https://wg21.link/lwg2116

[Bug tree-optimization/101555] Compile slowdown in tree PRE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101555 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regression] Compile |Compile slowdown in tree

[Bug target/102218] New: 128-bit atomic compare and exchange does not honor memory model on AArch64 and Arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102218 Bug ID: 102218 Summary: 128-bit atomic compare and exchange does not honor memory model on AArch64 and Arm Product: gcc Version: 9.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/87980] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get, at fortran/trans-array.c for assignment on allocatable polymorphic variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87980 --- Comment #8 from Jürgen Reuter --- The actual workaround that I'm using (the code is from of our stale branches which recently became active again) is: [...] subroutine qn_string_set (qns, col) class(qn_string_t), intent(inout) :: qns

[Bug middle-end/101551] [offloading] Differences in diagnostics etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101551 --- Comment #2 from Thomas Schwinge --- I've noticed that with an offloading-enabled build of GCC we're losing "note: in expansion of macro '[...]'" diagnostics. (Effectively '-ftrack-macro-expansion=0'?) For example,

[Bug target/89984] Extra register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/87980] ICE in gfc_conv_descriptor_data_get, at fortran/trans-array.c for assignment on allocatable polymorphic variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87980 --- Comment #7 from Jürgen Reuter --- Is anybody ever looked into this? Any updates?

[Bug target/89984] Extra register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a commit r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a Author: H.J. Lu Date: Sat Sep 4

[Bug target/102215] [GCN offloading] Missing '__atomic_compare_exchange_1' etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Actually, looking at GCN, it is inline e.g. for both: int foo (int *p) { return __sync_val_compare_and_swap_4 (p, 1, 2); } int bar (int *p) { int e = 1; __atomic_compare_exchange_4 (p, , 2, 0,

[Bug fortran/94070] Assumed-rank arrays – bounds mishandled, SIZE/SHAPE/UBOUND/LBOUND

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94070 --- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus --- I think my patch for moving the CFI<->GFC conversion to FE-generated code partially helps, https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-September/578904.html However, I still see the following issues:

[Bug c++/100495] constexpr virtual destructor incorrectly reports memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-06

[Bug tree-optimization/94675] [9/10/11/12 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O2 since r9-1948

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675 --- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski --- So on the trunk we get: c_len.0_1 = c_len; _2 = (long unsigned int) c_len.0_1; _6 = + _2; MEM [(struct pstream_t *)] = MEM [(struct pstream_t *) + 8B] = _6; _17 = (signed long) c_len.0_1;

[Bug target/102215] [GCN offloading] Missing '__atomic_compare_exchange_1' etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/101140] [modules] no matching function for call to ‘operator new(sizetype, void*)’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101140 --- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com --- https://godbolt.org/z/EaPf3anxx

[Bug c++/101449] [modules] internal compiler error: in cxx_eval_call_expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101449 --- Comment #1 from ensadc at mailnesia dot com --- https://godbolt.org/z/fMr9acG15

[Bug c++/102217] New: co_awaiting a temporary produced by ternary operator crashes (double-free)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102217 Bug ID: 102217 Summary: co_awaiting a temporary produced by ternary operator crashes (double-free) Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/96188] -Wstringop-overflow false positive on std::vector::push_back with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96188 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #6) > The example in comment #4 is due to the same problem/limitation in the > optimizer. The IL that triggers the warning is below: I am going to fix this issue as

[Bug target/102182] Runtime error for gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-float16.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/102182] Runtime error for gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-float16.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102182 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:93e6809459f34ca7b5928f1729246b2e9dfb3eb4 commit r12-3368-g93e6809459f34ca7b5928f1729246b2e9dfb3eb4 Author: liuhongt Date: Mon Sep

[Bug tree-optimization/102216] False positive warray-bounds with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/100495] constexpr virtual destructor incorrectly reports memory leak

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100495 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, for constructors this is likely a non-issue, because in_chrg etc. only appears on constructors of classes with virtual bases and such constructors are not constexpr.

[Bug tree-optimization/101394] [9 Regression] ICE on valid code with -O2: SSA corruption: Unable to coalesce ssa_names 10 and 19 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101394 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.0 Summary|[9/10

[Bug tree-optimization/101291] [10 Regression] turns infinite loop into finite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.0 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/101009] [10 Regression] wrong code with "-O3 -fno-tree-sra"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101009 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.1 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/101394] [9/10 Regression] ICE on valid code with -O2: SSA corruption: Unable to coalesce ssa_names 10 and 19 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101394 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:424737442fb7cd6ea8f0e63098c26cebdaf82a51 commit r10-10099-g424737442fb7cd6ea8f0e63098c26cebdaf82a51 Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/101291] [10 Regression] turns infinite loop into finite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101291 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1a4075c0a43fff9fac9df91c3e83e3a1949b69ff commit r10-10098-g1a4075c0a43fff9fac9df91c3e83e3a1949b69ff Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/101173] [9/10 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101173 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7 commit r10-10097-gac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7 Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/101280] [12 Regression] TSVC s231 slower with -Ofast -march=znver1 since r12-1836-g0ad9d88a3d7170b3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101280 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7 commit r10-10097-gac6efdd70779a3be748d11c3b03c08df9ce15dd7 Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/101105] [9/10 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101105 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aed52ca415b635463116486865a2a55f947cf8c1 commit r10-10096-gaed52ca415b635463116486865a2a55f947cf8c1 Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/101009] [10 Regression] wrong code with "-O3 -fno-tree-sra"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101009 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:917a675ad57f21f575c86192b22b1cc6d3bfc23d commit r10-10095-g917a675ad57f21f575c86192b22b1cc6d3bfc23d Author: Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/102216] New: False positive warray-bounds with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102216 Bug ID: 102216 Summary: False positive warray-bounds with -O2 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug middle-end/101018] ICE when enabling OpenMP on a simple loop with SVE intrinsics (aarch64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101018 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- /* When adding a variable-sized variable, we have to handle all sorts of additional bits of data: the pointer replacement variable, and the parameters of the type. */ None of this code is

[Bug target/102215] [GCN offloading] Missing '__atomic_compare_exchange_1' etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102215 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- So what did it do for __sync_val_compare_and_exchange_1 ? Was that expanded inline, or do we have such entrypoint somewhere outside of libatomic, something else?

  1   2   >