[Bug preprocessor/103902] GCC requires a space between string-literal and identifier in a literal-operator-id where the identifier is not in basic character set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902 Lewis Hyatt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug preprocessor/103902] GCC requires a space between string-literal and identifier in a literal-operator-id where the identifier is not in basic character set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103902 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Lewis Hyatt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d3e4f4e2d19c3394dc018118a78c1f4b59cb5c2 commit r14-2629-g1d3e4f4e2d19c3394dc018118a78c1f4b59cb5c2 Author: Lewis Hyatt Date: Tue

[Bug target/106460] internal compiler error: output_operand: invalid expression as operand on -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106460 Jiu Fu Guo changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/110625] [AArch64] Vect: SLP fails to vectorize a loop as the reduction_latency calculated by new costs is too large

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110625 --- Comment #6 from Hao Liu --- Thanks for the confirmation about the reduction latency. I'll create a simple patch to fix this. > Discounting the loads, we do have 15 general operations. That's true, and there are indeed 8 general

[Bug c++/102724] ICE in genericize_spaceship, at cp/method.c:1089

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102724 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug target/109504] [12/13/14 Regression] Compilation fails with pragma GCC target sse4.1 and immintrin.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109504 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9a19fa8b616f83474c35cc5b34a3865073ced829 commit r14-2628-g9a19fa8b616f83474c35cc5b34a3865073ced829 Author: liuhongt Date: Tue Apr

[Bug c/110728] should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728 --- Comment #5 from John McCall --- > If this gets changed in GCC, I'd be happy to modify clang to match that > updated behavior. Policy-wise, I don't think clang would accept a patch making this UB (effectively what not calling the

[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used (+=, ++)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 Vincent Lefèvre changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net ---

[Bug c/95057] missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning on multiple assignments, not all of them used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95057 --- Comment #6 from Vincent Lefèvre --- Well, for the ++, --, +=, -=, *=, etc. operators, that's PR44677 (though it is unclear on what it should cover).

[Bug c/95057] missing -Wunused-but-set-variable warning on multiple assignments, not all of them used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95057 --- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre --- FYI, Clang 16 does not warn either on the testcases provided in comment 0 (bug report). But contrary to GCC (tested with master r14-1713-g6631fe419c6 - Debian gcc-snapshot package 20230613-1), Clang 15

[Bug c++/110114] [13/14 Regression] ICE on calling overloaded function in case of incomplete argument type and C++ designated initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110114 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- This should work; I'll test it tomorrow. --- a/gcc/cp/call.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/call.cc @@ -986,6 +986,11 @@ build_aggr_conv (tree type, tree ctor, int flags, tsubst_flags_t complain) tree empty_ctor =

[Bug c++/110114] [13/14 Regression] ICE on calling overloaded function in case of incomplete argument type and C++ designated initializers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110114 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug c/110728] should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #7) > Silly question: I would expect -O0 not to perform any simplifications like > that. Does `gcc` have a knob to disable `match.pd` templates? Or some of >

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #7 from Sergei Trofimovich --- Silly question: I would expect -O0 not to perform any simplifications like that. Does `gcc` have a knob to disable `match.pd` templates? Or some of them are crucial for correctness?

[Bug c/110728] should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- That is even doing: ``` int g(); int h() { l0:; int x __attribute__((cleanup(test4cleanup))); if (g()) goto l0; } ``` Produces the same result which is why I said this is the same as PR 91951

[Bug c/110728] should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Techincally x does not go out of scope until the } so I don't see how this would act any other way.

[Bug c/110728] should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I suspect PR 91951 is the same really.

[Bug c/110728] New: should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110728 Bug ID: 110728 Summary: should __attribute__((cleanup())) callback get invoked for indirect edges of asm goto Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55576 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55576=edit Full testcase

[Bug fortran/110720] [13 Regression] Internal compiler error (segmentation fault) in gfc_expression_rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110720 --- Comment #3 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #2) > (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > > Looks like a dup of pr109948, which is fixed on 14-trunk. > > > > @Paul: do you think your patch (commit

[Bug fortran/110720] [13 Regression] Internal compiler error (segmentation fault) in gfc_expression_rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110720 --- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > Looks like a dup of pr109948, which is fixed on 14-trunk. > > @Paul: do you think your patch (commit r14-1487-g3c2eba4) is > backportable to 13-branch? I know that it

[Bug testsuite/110419] [14 regression] new test case gfortran.dg/value_9.f90 in r14-2050-gd130ae8499e0c6 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110419 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55575 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55575=edit Patch which should fix this So I didn't realize I need the check for "INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)) &&

[Bug target/110724] Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110724 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Plus if this is just the return case how important is that because maybe we should be inlining this kind of function. Plus this is a memcpy, why not just use the expansion of __builtin_memcpy here (which

[Bug c++/110106] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE on noexcept(noexcept(...)) with optional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110106 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug target/110724] Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110724 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |target --- Comment #4 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- /* a | (a == b) --> a | (b^1) (boolean version of the above). */ (simplify (bit_ior:c @0 (nop_convert? (eq:c @0 @1))) (bit_ior @0 (bit_xor @1 { build_one_cst (type); }))) So I guess the issue is eq on

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-07-18

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/110722] FP is Saved/Restored around inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110722 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this will be fixed with -momit-leaf-frame-pointer patch at : https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/624752.html

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Whoops wrong bug report.

[Bug middle-end/110726] [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this will be fixed with -momit-leaf-frame-pointer patch at : https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/624752.html

[Bug target/110727] New: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/aarch64-sve.exp has two new failures since commit 061f74c0673

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110727 Bug ID: 110727 Summary: gcc.target/aarch64/sve/aarch64-sve.exp has two new failures since commit 061f74c0673 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/110726] New: [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110726 Bug ID: 110726 Summary: [14 Regression] wrong code on llvm-16 around 'a |= a == 0' Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/110724] Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110724 --- Comment #3 from Javier Martinez --- The generic tuning of 16:11:8 looks reasonable to me, I do not argue against it. 

From Anger Fog’s Optimizing subroutines in assembly language: 
> Most microprocessors fetch code in aligned 16-byte or

[Bug fortran/110725] [13/14 Regression,openmp] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.cc:10897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110725 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[13/14 Regression] internal |[13/14 Regression,openmp]

[Bug fortran/110360] ABI issue with character,value dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110360 --- Comment #26 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to David Edelsohn from comment #25) > The problem on big endian systems is that GFortran is passing the character > with the wrong padding. [...] > GFortran is not taking account of

[Bug fortran/95947] PACK intrinsic returns blank strings when an allocatable character array with allocatable length is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95947 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug fortran/110658] MINVAL/MAXVAL and deferred-length character arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110658 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccf94ab2abb6969c04d51c7879f07edfbb97ae55 commit r13-7584-gccf94ab2abb6969c04d51c7879f07edfbb97ae55 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/95947] PACK intrinsic returns blank strings when an allocatable character array with allocatable length is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95947 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ccf94ab2abb6969c04d51c7879f07edfbb97ae55 commit r13-7584-gccf94ab2abb6969c04d51c7879f07edfbb97ae55 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug c++/110197] [13/14 Regression] Empty constexpr object constructor erronously claims out of range access

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110197 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- // PR c++/110197 namespace std { constexpr bool __is_constant_evaluated() { return __builtin_is_constant_evaluated(); } template using enable_if_t = _Tp; template struct __array_traits { typedef _Tp

[Bug fortran/110725] [13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.cc:10897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110725 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/110724] Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110724 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/110724] Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110724 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is by design. Adding -fno-align-jumps makes the alignment go away.

[Bug c++/110338] Implement C++26 language features

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338 Bug 110338 depends on bug 110340, which changed state. Bug 110340 Summary: [C++26] P2621R2 - Remove undefined behavior from lexing https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110340 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/110340] [C++26] P2621R2 - Remove undefined behavior from lexing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110340 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fca089e8a47314a40ad93527ba9f9d0d374b3afb commit r14-2626-gfca089e8a47314a40ad93527ba9f9d0d374b3afb Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/110340] [C++26] P2621R2 - Remove undefined behavior from lexing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110340 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/110725] New: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.cc:10897

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110725 Bug ID: 110725 Summary: internal compiler error: in expand_expr_real_1, at expr.cc:10897 Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/110701] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3/s on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110701 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |roger at nextmovesoftware dot com

[Bug rtl-optimization/110724] New: Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110724 Bug ID: 110724 Summary: Unnecessary alignment on branch to unconditional branch targets Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/110723] ICE with allocatable character lhs and parenthesized array with vector subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110723 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #0) > Not sure if this is the right place. Actually, the following still fails: n = (m([2])//"") ! ICE :-( Generally stripping parentheses generates a

[Bug fortran/110723] New: ICE with allocatable character lhs and parenthesized array with vector subscript

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110723 Bug ID: 110723 Summary: ICE with allocatable character lhs and parenthesized array with vector subscript Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/110721] Segmentation fault with '-O3 -fno-dce -fno-ipa-cp -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-sink'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110721 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- It seems to work on the trunk ...

[Bug target/110649] [14 Regression] 25% sphinx3 spec2006 regression on Ice Lake and zen since g:r14-2369-g3a61ca1b925653 (2023-07-06)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110649 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/102989] Implement C2x's n2763 (_BitInt)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55567|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug rtl-optimization/110701] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3/s on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110701 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com ---

[Bug fortran/110720] [13 Regression] Internal compiler error (segmentation fault) in gfc_expression_rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110720 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/110722] New: FP is Saved/Restored around inline assembly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110722 Bug ID: 110722 Summary: FP is Saved/Restored around inline assembly Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug gcov-profile/110561] gcov counts closing bracket in a function as executable, lowering coverage statistics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110561 --- Comment #5 from Carlos Galvez --- @Andrew Pinski ping in case you missed my last message. If this were a duplicate but, wouldn't it also happen in GCC 7.5.0?

[Bug libgcc/109712] [13 Regression] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/110721] Segmentation fault with '-O3 -fno-dce -fno-ipa-cp -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-sink'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110721 --- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> --- Created attachment 55571 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55571=edit The compiler output

[Bug c/110721] New: Segmentation fault with '-O3 -fno-dce -fno-ipa-cp -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-sink'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110721 Bug ID: 110721 Summary: Segmentation fault with '-O3 -fno-dce -fno-ipa-cp -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-sink' Product: gcc Version: 11.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libgcc/109712] [13 Regression] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 --- Comment #36 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Florian Weimer : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7302f8a2fa2f95252b32de2dc826591e75230662 commit r13-7582-g7302f8a2fa2f95252b32de2dc826591e75230662 Author: Florian

[Bug libgcc/110179] unwind-dw2-fde-dip.c:406: assignment makes integer from pointer without a cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110179 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Florian Weimer : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f9dfb4d759146eebf7f88ad519010ea2191bf3a commit r13-7583-g6f9dfb4d759146eebf7f88ad519010ea2191bf3a Author: Florian

[Bug fortran/110720] New: Internal compiler error (segmentation fault) in gfc_expression_rank

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110720 Bug ID: 110720 Summary: Internal compiler error (segmentation fault) in gfc_expression_rank Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/110717] Double-word sign-extension missed-optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Improved testcase which shows similar behavior also with bitfields: #ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__ #define type __int128 #define N 59 #else #define type long long #define N 27 #endif struct S { type a : sizeof

[Bug target/110649] [14 Regression] 25% sphinx3 spec2006 regression on Ice Lake and zen between g:acaa441a98bebc52 (2023-07-06 11:36) and g:55900189ab517906 (2023-07-07 00:23)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110649 --- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka --- Chasing profile update bugs out of the hottest two functions did not solve the regression. Moreover the weekly testers confirm it was not noise on zens either. Before the change we get: 34.58%

[Bug libstdc++/110719] New: Should chrono formatters always use std::time_put for locale's representation?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110719 Bug ID: 110719 Summary: Should chrono formatters always use std::time_put for locale's representation? Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/110718] New: [OpenMP] Wrong value for 'lastprivate' for zero-trip loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110718 Bug ID: 110718 Summary: [OpenMP] Wrong value for 'lastprivate' for zero-trip loops Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openmp, wrong-code

[Bug target/110709] how to handle the initialization of global struct data for position independent executable application.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110709 --- Comment #8 from wangwen at microsoft dot com --- I posted it in the wrong place, please just delete it. thank you.

[Bug rtl-optimization/110717] Double-word sign-extension missed-optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/110717] New: Double-word sign-extension missed-optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110717 Bug ID: 110717 Summary: Double-word sign-extension missed-optimization Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug rtl-optimization/71923] return instruction emitted twice with branch target inbetween

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71923 Javier Martinez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||javier.martinez.bugzilla@gm

[Bug libgcc/109712] [13 Regression] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 --- Comment #35 from Florian Weimer --- Backport posted, along with the warning fix: [PATCH releases/gcc-13 1/2] libgcc: Fix eh_frame fast path in find_fde_tail [PATCH

[Bug bootstrap/110716] failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716 --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao --- Should we change invoke.texi? diff --git a/gcc/doc/install.texi b/gcc/doc/install.texi index e099cd0b568..dd4f74fbd78 100644 --- a/gcc/doc/install.texi +++ b/gcc/doc/install.texi @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ Necessary

[Bug middle-end/110702] [12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux-gnu (regression since GCC-12.2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110702 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---

[Bug target/110709] how to handle the initialization of global struct data for position independent executable application.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110709 --- Comment #7 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to wangwen from comment #6) > would anyone guide me any place to ask such question? You are building the .o files with -fpie, but have you linked the executable with -pie? Note that -fpie and -pie

[Bug libgcc/109712] [13 Regression] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 --- Comment #34 from Richard Biener --- You have until Thursday for the backport which is when we want to do 13.2 RC1

[Bug c++/109241] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault for statement expression with a local type inside inside a generic lambda inside a generic lambda since r13-6722-gb323f52ccf966800

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109241 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/110170] Sub-optimal conditional jumps in conditional-swap with floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110170 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|14.0|--- Resolution|FIXED

[Bug rtl-optimization/105715] [13 Regression] missed RTL if-conversion with COND_EXPR change

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105715 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[13/14 Regression] missed |[13 Regression] missed RTL

[Bug rtl-optimization/105715] [13/14 Regression] missed RTL if-conversion with COND_EXPR change

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105715 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cbe5f6859a73b2acf203bd7d13f9fb245d63cbd4 commit r14-2620-gcbe5f6859a73b2acf203bd7d13f9fb245d63cbd4 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug target/110709] how to handle the initialization of global struct data for position independent executable application.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110709 --- Comment #6 from wangwen at microsoft dot com --- would anyone guide me any place to ask such question?

[Bug c++/110535] Internal error when performing a surrogate call with unsatisfied constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110535 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug bootstrap/110716] failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/110535] Internal error when performing a surrogate call with unsatisfied constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110535 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1e0f37df1b12cd91a6dbb523f5c722f9a961edaa commit r14-2618-g1e0f37df1b12cd91a6dbb523f5c722f9a961edaa Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug bootstrap/110716] failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/110714] constexpr lifetime error: base class this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110714 --- Comment #3 from Paul Keir --- Actually, there's no need here to delete through the base pointer; so this is perhaps simpler: struct Base { constexpr Base* get_this() { return this; } int x; }; struct Derived : public Base {};

[Bug bootstrap/110716] failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Some c++11ism slipped into the last gcc 10 release it seems. Since gcc 10.5 is the last release of the gcc 10 series, there is not much to be done there. Now I can't remember if gcc 11 requires c++11

[Bug bootstrap/110716] failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716 --- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao --- GCC 10 branch has been closed so this is unlikely to be fixed.

[Bug bootstrap/110716] New: failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110716 Bug ID: 110716 Summary: failed to build cross gcc 10.5 with host gcc 4.6.3 Product: gcc Version: 10.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/110714] constexpr lifetime error: base class this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110714 --- Comment #2 from Paul Keir --- I know. `delete pf` also works. The issue seems to be with the use of the this pointer within the member function. This is just the MRE - I've come across this issue twice now in our code base.

[Bug c++/110715] New: Static thread_local unique_ptrs must be defined in the same order as they were declared when using -ftest-coverage else get error 'function starts on a higher line number than it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110715 Bug ID: 110715 Summary: Static thread_local unique_ptrs must be defined in the same order as they were declared when using -ftest-coverage else get error 'function starts on a

[Bug c++/110714] constexpr lifetime error: base class this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110714 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/89180] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wunused warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89180 Bug 89180 depends on bug 101090, which changed state. Bug 101090 Summary: incorrect -Wunused-value warning on remquo with constant values https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101090 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/106264] [10/11/12/13 Regression] spurious -Wunused-value on a folded frexp, modf, and remquo calls with unused result since r9-1295-g781ff3d80e88d7d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106264 --- Comment #9 from Roger Sayle --- *** Bug 101090 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/101090] incorrect -Wunused-value warning on remquo with constant values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101090 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

  1   2   >