[Bug c++/109448] _M_exception_object’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109448 --- Comment #1 from jinci kang --- This problem occurs under GCC12 and when compiling optimization is turned on, and only if the template T type is the empty type.

[Bug c++/109448] New: _M_exception_object’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109448 Bug ID: 109448 Summary: _M_exception_object’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libffi/109447] test case libffi.closures/cls_align_longdouble_split.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- Hmmm, libffi commit 464b4b66e3cf3b5489e730c1466ee1bf825560e0 seems to be missing from GCC's sources. I'll try applying that and see if it fixes the problem. commit 464b4b66e3cf3b5489e730c1466ee1bf825560e0

[Bug libffi/109447] test case libffi.closures/cls_align_longdouble_split.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1) > Does that also happen with the latest sources at > ? I downloaded current sources on the same system (a long double ==

[Bug libstdc++/88508] std::bad_cast in std::basic_ostringstream.oss.fill()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88508 --- Comment #4 from Frank Heckenbach --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) I don't think my description is "completely wrong". I'm basically saying the same as you, in plain English. char8_t was introduced as the preferred type for

[Bug c++/100825] function signature constraints are not a part of mangled name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100825 Richard Smith changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richard-gccbugzilla@metafoo

[Bug libffi/109447] test case libffi.closures/cls_align_longdouble_split.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447 --- Comment #1 from Andreas Schwab --- Does that also happen with the latest sources at ?

[Bug target/108851] gcc -pie generates unwanted PE export table

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108851 --- Comment #2 from Pali Rohár --- So should I report this issue to binutils bugtracker then?

[Bug sanitizer/109444] Possible array overflow without diagnosis in memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109444 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libffi/109447] New: test case libffi.closures/cls_align_longdouble_split.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447 Bug ID: 109447 Summary: test case libffi.closures/cls_align_longdouble_split.c fails Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/109424] ~((x > y) ? x : y) produces two not instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109424 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com ---

[Bug sanitizer/109446] New: Possible destination array overflow without diagnosis in memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109446 Bug ID: 109446 Summary: Possible destination array overflow without diagnosis in memcpy Product: gcc Version: 8.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/109444] Possible array overflow without diagnosis in memcpy if called within a virtual method scenario

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109444 --- Comment #2 from Mohamed --- I guess you meant Bar, since Bar has the array member. But then for the sanitizer to intervene and diagnose are there conditions for alignment??

[Bug c++/12341] Request for additional warning for variable shadowing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12341 Benjamin Priour changed: What|Removed |Added CC||priour.be at gmail dot com ---

[Bug analyzer/106000] RFE: -fanalyzer should complain about memory accesses that are definitely out-of-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106000 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||109432 --- Comment #8 from David

[Bug analyzer/106626] Improvements to wording of -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106626 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/86584] Incorrect -Wsequence-point warning on structure member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86584 --- Comment #3 from Futaura --- Can you explain why you think that? There is nothing ambiguous or undefined about this code. Each function argument is evaluated before calling func() and it doesn't even matter which order the arguments are

[Bug tree-optimization/109443] missed optimization of std::vector access (Related to issue 35269)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||alias, missed-optimization --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/109443] missed optimization of std::vector access (Related to issue 35269)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > Does not Richard's response still apply here? > > > Sorry, but the vector v is potentially clobbered by the call to f, so the > > load > > of the array pointer

[Bug tree-optimization/109443] missed optimization of std::vector access (Related to issue 35269)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug tree-optimization/109443] missed optimization of std::vector access (Related to issue 35269)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109443 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org