[Bug bootstrap/97409] riscv cross toolchain build fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to fdlbxtqi from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > Sounds like the binutils does not have the needed support for (32bit) > > multilib. > > so I should build binutils

[Bug bootstrap/97409] riscv cross toolchain build fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97409 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/97474] Regression: optimization produces wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This feels like an use after something goes out of scope.

[Bug tree-optimization/97474] [8/9/10/11 Regression] produces wrong code with references to another field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97474 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-10-17 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/97222] GCC discards attributes aligned and may_alias for typedefs passed as template arguments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97222 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug c++/97202] [11 Regression] GCC reports an error: expected unqualified-id before ‘short’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97202 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Could this be a c++17 difference?

[Bug c/97215] Possible fread() malfunction of GCC 7.3.0 (Windows)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97215 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- fopen/fread/fwrite DOES NOT come from GCC, but rather than in this case mingw.

[Bug c/97215] Possible fread() malfunction of GCC 7.3.0 (Windows)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97215 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/97225] Failure to optimize out conditional addition of zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97225 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug target/98647] Failure to optimize out convertion from float to vector type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98647 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c/98634] gcc 4.8.5 - 9.3.0 on target x86_64, when compile a exe and linking with a so, and exe's source file extern a var, the final exe has the var with the same name with the one in the so file

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98634 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/98572] Unexpected signed extension for unsigned bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98572 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/88731] [DR 481] Rejects well-formed program using bit-fields in _Generic.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88731 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vonchun at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug c/98572] Unexpected signed extension for unsigned bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98572 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >Even if integer promotion happens, it should be promoted as "unsigned int" as >well. Why do you think it should be promoted to unsigned int rather int? Since a 24bit unsigned int fits into a 32 bit

[Bug preprocessor/98021] #warning issues redundant diagnostic lines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98021 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- so you are asking not to show the source file for #warning ? I don't see why this warning should be treated as any different from any other warning.

[Bug c/97932] Preprocessor, generated error dumps most of the source file, not just one line.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97932 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #1 from

[Bug c++/54278] [6 regression] __attribute__((noreturn)) called from destructor when another auto-scoped variable has a non-trivial dtor erroneously fails with "control reaches end of non-void functio

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54278 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to danikiw542 from comment #8) > https://kodlogs.com/blog/852/warning-control-reaches-end-non-void-function- > wreturn-type values not defined in enum's are still valid and well defined, that is

[Bug debug/97989] -g3 somehow breaks -E

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97989 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/98159] Compiler generates infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98159 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/98168] Optimization that can lead to security vulnerabilities

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98168 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/98151] integer output gives different results with -O2 and -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98151 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Host|Linux |

[Bug c/88662] Document trap representations of _Bool

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88662 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vstinner at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/98190] GCC 11.0 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/98190] GCC 11.0 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/98190] GCC 11.0 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Victor Stinner from comment #3) > Well, either all 64 bits of w4 and w5 registries should be initialized > properly, or the comparison should be done only on the least significant 8 > bits: > >

[Bug c++/98207] ARM64 IEEE math results change with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > The default is to use fused multiple add. > If you don't want to use FMA, then use -ffp-contract=off (the default =fast). > > > x84_64 by default does not have

[Bug c++/98207] ARM64 IEEE math results change with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98207 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/98209] printf failed with O1 or above

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98209 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you provide the preprocessed source?

[Bug target/97950] Unoptimal code generation with __builtin_*_overflow{,_p} for short and __int128

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97950 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c++/97976] Optimization regression in 10.1 for lambda passed as template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97976 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I don't think there is a bug here. This loop here: for (const int* pi = data; pi; ++pi) invokes undefined behavior as pi can never become null after doing the increment.

[Bug tree-optimization/97980] wrong code with "-O3 -fno-dce -fno-inline-functions-called-once -fno-inline-small-functions -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-vrp"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97980 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Component|c

[Bug c++/98220] LTO causes floating point exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98220 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Are you sure this just not a divide by zero? On x86, an integer divide by zero will throw an FPU exception.

[Bug target/97992] ICE in subst_asm_stack_regs, at reg-stack.c:2264

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97992 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||69899 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug target/98136] [8/9/10/11 Regression] [aarch64] Internal compiler error with large classes and virtual methods

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98136 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.5 Summary|[aarch64]

[Bug ipa/98106] [11 Regression] gcc trunk miscompiles glibc dynamic loader

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98106 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Summary|gcc trunk

[Bug ipa/98106] gcc trunk miscompiles glibc dynamic loader

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98106 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug inline-asm/98096] Inconsistent operand numbering for asm goto with in-out operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98096 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/98055] __builtin_alloca should not have warn_unused_result attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98055 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- See the thread starting at: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2019-June/523700.html

[Bug c/98070] errno is not re-evaluated after clearing errno and calling realloc(ptr, SIZE_MAX)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98070 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/98366] [11 Regression] wrong-code with memcmp and -m32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98366 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- The question be asked if (S[]){{.alignment = 3, '(', 2.0}} has a defined S[0].b to be 0 or is uninitialized?

[Bug c/98250] Wrong code path with -O1 and signed overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98250 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/98226] Slow std::countr_one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98226 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Oh, but you didn't enable any optimization at all, so who cares about the > performance? I was thinking the same.

[Bug c++/98261] Wrong optimize for virtual function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98261 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/98425] Superfluous sign-extend for constrained integer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98425 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note your optimum code is wrong. movl %esi, %eax Is a zero extend.

[Bug rtl-optimization/98425] Superfluous sign-extend for constrained integer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98425 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/98436] issue with casting member function on linux32 bit only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/98436] issue with casting member function on linux32 bit only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/98436] issue with casting member function on linux32 bit only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98436 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/98418] Valid integer constant expressions based on expressions that trigger -Wshift-overflow are treated as non-constants

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98418 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Shifting into the sign bit is problematic. I cant remember the exact rules. Using ull is valid though.

[Bug c++/98416] POWER8: SIGILL handler does not restart properly after signal using GCC 10.2.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/98416] POWER8: SIGILL handler does not restart properly after signal using GCC 10.2.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98416 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- You need to use the target atrribute on CPU_ProbePower9 so GCC won't use power9 instructions on it. Something like: bool CPU_ProbePower9() __attribute__((target("cpu=power7"))); bool CPU_ProbePower9()

[Bug c++/98286] g++ accepts 'void d(void) { typename foo; }' as valid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98286 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||7.5.0 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/98404] Compiler emits unexpected function call that may cause security problems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98404 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/97784] Expressions evaluated as long chain instead of as tree or the like

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97784 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Reassociation is done for signed types and places where it could introduce overflows. If you -fwrapv, you should get the optimization. Likewise for unsigned types.

[Bug target/97802] [AArch64] Incorrect documentation for Arm64 NEON

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97802 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/97802] [AArch64] Incorrect documentation for Arm64 NEON

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97802 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-11-11

[Bug libstdc++/97844] Unsigned Integer Overflow when comparing strings (|s1|<|s2|)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/97831] Lack of disable_tail_calls attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97831 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I can think of a simple way disabling tail calls: static void disabletailcallfunc(void*) __attribute__((noipa)); static void disabletailcallfunc(void *x){} #define disabletailcall() do {int a;

[Bug c/97831] Lack of disable_tail_calls attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97831 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this was rejected 3 years ago: https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg02221.html

[Bug c/97831] Lack of disable_tail_calls attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97831 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) And see https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2017-07/msg00130.html

[Bug bootstrap/97916] Can't compile gcc-10.2.0 with --enable-fixed-point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97916 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|documentation | Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/97916] Can't compile gcc-10.2.0 with --enable-fixed-point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97916 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |bootstrap Target|

[Bug tree-optimization/22326] promotions (from float to double) are not removed when they should be able to

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22326 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to luoxhu from comment #4) > float foo(float f, float x, float y) { > return (fabs(f)*x+y); > } > > the input of fabs is float type, so use fabsf is enough here, drafted a > patch to avoid double

[Bug c++/97677] std::array and std::initializer_list gives wrong results

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97677 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||7.5.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/97658] Tired of having to change make files on every new version. Damnit!

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97658 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug inline-asm/97708] Inline asm does not use the local register asm specified with register ... asm() as input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug inline-asm/97708] Inline asm does not use the local register asm specified with register ... asm() as input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97708 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/97519] builtin_constant_p (x + cst) should be optimized to builtin_constant_p (x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97519 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/97519] builtin_constant_p (x + cst) should be optimized to builtin_constant_p (x)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97519 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug middle-end/97743] Failure to optimize boolean multiplication to select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- What about: (-B)&743 Is that faster?

[Bug middle-end/97743] Failure to optimize boolean multiplication to select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97743 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > What about: > (-B)&743 > Is that faster? Never mind I see it was not :)

[Bug tree-optimization/98467] gcc optimizes tapping code away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98467 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/98477] aarch64: Unnecessary GPR -> FPR moves for conditional select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement CC|

[Bug target/98477] aarch64: Unnecessary GPR -> FPR moves for conditional select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #1) > Or a =r,r,r alternative to the FCSEL pattern instead... Should most likely add the r alternative to *cmov_insn (GPF) and the w alternative to *cmov_insn (ALLI). So

[Bug target/98477] aarch64: Unnecessary GPR -> FPR moves for conditional select

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98477 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-12-30 Version|unknown

[Bug c++/98485] Symbols for identical constrained specializations have different linkage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98485 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I thought the C++ rule was all specializations has to be seen when you use one or the other. Otherwise this becomes an ODR issue and therefor invalid code (not have to be diagnostic at compile time).

[Bug target/98667] gcc generates endbr32 invalid opcode on -march=i486

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98667 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Is this directly on a i486 box or VirtualBox? VirtualBox might have a bug.

[Bug middle-end/98715] ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98715 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end

[Bug c/98621] ICE: x from g referenced in f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98621 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |minor

[Bug c++/98801] Request for a conditional move built-in function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98801 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I don't think we need a builtin. Because we could just improve the code generation instead.

[Bug middle-end/98829] Different results with -O3 and custom quiet NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98829 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- NaNs do prograte but as far as I know can change values as long as it is still a NaN.

[Bug tree-optimization/98813] loop is sub-optimized if index is unsigned int with offset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98813 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #0) > For the below code: > ---t.c > void > foo (const double* __restrict__ A, const double* __restrict__ B, double* > __restrict__ C, > int n, int k, int m) > {

[Bug driver/98794] @file error checking is inconsistent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98794 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Related to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31566.

[Bug tree-optimization/98758] [11 Regression] ice in lambda_matrix_right_hermite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98758 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |11.0 Target Milestone|---

[Bug other/98663] gcc generates endless loop at -O2 or greater depending on order of testExpression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98663 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/98681] [8/9/10/11 Regression] aarch64: Invalid ubfiz instruction rejected by assembler

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98681 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/98649] Trivial jump table not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98649 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end Severity|normal

[Bug target/93390] AARCH64: FP move costs needs improvements for ThunderX2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93390 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/98817] Optimize if (a != b) a = b;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98817 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- This cannot be done due to race conditions too: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/DataRaces

[Bug lto/97787] [10/11 regression] 64bit mips lto: .symtab local symbol at index x (>= sh_info of y)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97787 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |lto CC|

[Bug c++/98819] Wall Wformat-signedness suggests %u for %u

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98819 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think you misunderstood the diagnostic. It is saying unsigned int is for %u. The type you have is int.

[Bug target/98729] GCC 11 MinGW Windows build doesn't generate working PE executables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98729 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |target --- Comment #2 from Andrew

[Bug c++/98682] g++ allows goto inside statement expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98682 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is a dup of bug 772.

[Bug target/98648] Failure to optimize out no-op vector operation using andnot

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98648 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug middle-end/98502] Optimised memcpy breaks __scalar_storage_order__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98502 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Component|c

[Bug middle-end/98896] local label displaced with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- See PR 29305 and others too on why this is undefined.

[Bug middle-end/98896] local label displaced with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98896 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/98906] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Miscompiles code even at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- So ccp3 is doing it. Visiting statement: quo_lo_52 = floorf (_51); which is likely CONSTANT Match-and-simplified floorf (_51) to -8.6e+1 Lattice value changed to CONSTANT -8.6e+1. Adding SSA edges to

[Bug tree-optimization/98906] [8/9/10/11 Regression] Miscompiles code even at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98906 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- unsigned quo = (uint32_t)(int64_t)(quo_hi) + (uint32_t)(int64_t)(quo_lo); Fixes the issue ..

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >