[Bug target/101205] New: csinv does not have an zero_extend version

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101205 Bug ID: 101205 Summary: csinv does not have an zero_extend version Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement

[Bug testsuite/101206] New: [12 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vmaxv.c and gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vaddv.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101206 Bug ID: 101206 Summary: [12 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vmaxv.c and gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vaddv.c fail Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/101206] [12 Regression] gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vmaxv.c and gcc.target/aarch64/vect-vaddv.c fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101206 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/101207] New: [12 Regress] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-mult.c fails after SLP improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207 Bug ID: 101207 Summary: [12 Regress] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-mult.c fails after SLP improvements Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wron

[Bug tree-optimization/101207] [12 Regress] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-mult.c fails after SLP improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug libffi/101208] New: libffi.call/nested_struct12.c fails on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101208 Bug ID: 101208 Summary: libffi.call/nested_struct12.c fails on aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: l

[Bug tree-optimization/101207] [12 Regress] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-*-mult.c fails after SLP improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regress]|[12 Regress] |gcc.dg/

[Bug libffi/101208] libffi.call/nested_struct12.c fails on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101208 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Just for reference the x86_64 fix was r12-1524 .

[Bug tree-optimization/101207] [12 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-*-mult.c fails after SLP improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Most likely introduced by r12-1551 .

[Bug tree-optimization/101207] [12 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-*-mult.c fails after SLP improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target|aarch64-linux-gnu |aarch64-linux-gnu, |

[Bug middle-end/101216] [12 regression] setjmp/longjmp excess errors after r12-1805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Target|powerpc64-linux

[Bug tree-optimization/56223] Integer ABS is not recognized for more complicated pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56223 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||101205 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug driver/56062] Enhance -fuse-ld= option

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pin

[Bug driver/93645] Support Clang 12 --ld-path=

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug middle-end/101217] Stray "note" diagnostics when warning suppressed in gcc.dg/analyzer/setjmp-2.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101217 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/101216] [12 regression] setjmp/longjmp excess errors after r12-1805

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/101228] tbb/task.h is Deprecated in newer TBB.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101228 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|#include |tbb/task.h is Deprecated in |tri

[Bug libstdc++/101227] Clang++ fails to instantiate std::optional if nested type has a non-static data member initializer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101227 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- clang is failing because of "requirement 'is_constructible_v' was not satisfied [with _Tp = Bar::Foo, _Args = <>]" But it seems like it should be true. from https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/is_cons

[Bug c/101230] [12 Regression] ice in fold_cond_expr_with_comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101230 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-06-27 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/101230] [12 Regression] ice in fold_cond_expr_with_comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101230 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c/101230] [12 Regression] ice in fold_cond_expr_with_comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101230 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 51064 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51064&action=edit Patch which I am testing Patch which is in testing.

[Bug c/101230] [12 Regression] ice in fold_cond_expr_with_comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101230 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/101234] Two tests require en_US.ISO-8859-15 but glibc no longer installs that by default.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101234 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Looks like the testsuite is incorrect, it should have been 'en_US.ISO8859-15'

[Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong code at -Os and above |[11/12 Regression] wrong

[Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Right before we have: popping range for c.0_1, restoring int VARYING But still don't see how we could get [0, 0] for the range there.

[Bug tree-optimization/101207] [12 Regression] gcc.dg/vect/vect-strided-*-mult.c fails after SLP improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101207 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > Created attachment 51067 [details] > patch I am testing All of the tests now pass on aarch64-linux-gnu with this above patch.

[Bug middle-end/101237] New: HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (element_mode (t)) should be moved to just HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (t)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101237 Bug ID: 101237 Summary: HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (element_mode (t)) should be moved to just HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (t) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug middle-end/101237] HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (element_mode (t)) should be moved to just HONOR_SIGNED_ZEROS (t)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101237 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/101241] Internal compiler error from MathFunctions.h in the eigen library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- How did you configure GCC? Also what revision is your 11.1.1 at?

[Bug target/101241] Internal compiler error from MathFunctions.h in the eigen library

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101241 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/98602] Failure to optimise vector “x > -100 ? x : -100” to MAX_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98602 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/98602] Failure to optimise vector “x > -100 ? x : -100” to MAX_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98602 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/108322] Using __restrict parameter with -ftree-vectorize (default with -O2) results in massive code bloat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108322 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-linux-gnu Component|tre

[Bug libstdc++/108326] Question about definitions in c++config.h for gcc13 20221229

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108326 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||*-*-mingw --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi

[Bug driver/108328] gcc --help -v doesn't work correctly in some circumstances in gcc>=10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108328 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Considering -fwrapv has been there since GCC 3.4.0, I think python should just change how their configuring. -fwrapv was added in r0-50210-g4fa26a60791ec3 .

[Bug driver/108328] gcc --help -v doesn't work correctly in some circumstances in gcc>=10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108328 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this behavior is correctly documented too: If the -v option is also specified then --help is also passed on to the various processes invoked by gcc, so that they can display the command-line options

[Bug c++/108324] Temporary not bound to reference in default member initializer destroyed early from parenthesized expression-list initialization of aggregate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108324 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- MSVC rejects it for the same reason as GCC: (15): error C2131: expression did not evaluate to a constant (11): note: a non-constant (sub-)expression was encountered (16): error C2369: 'k': redefinition; dif

[Bug lto/108330] [13 Regression] ICE in add, at hash-set.h:64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108330 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug middle-end/108249] cc1plus segmentation fault compiling Marlin on RPI3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108249 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pins

[Bug libstdc++/108332] dynamic link libstdc++ with win32 thread model's gcc for windows native toolchain would cause .rdata_r: section below image base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108332 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- This seems like a binutils ld bug rather than a libstdc++ bug ...

[Bug libstdc++/108332] dynamic link libstdc++ with win32 thread model's gcc for windows native toolchain would cause .rdata_r: section below image base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108332 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils-cvs/2021-March/056031.html

[Bug libstdc++/108332] dynamic link libstdc++ with win32 thread model's gcc for windows native toolchain would cause .rdata_r: section below image base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108332 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- cygwin was improved here: https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=newlib-cygwin.git;h=801120c1f402f9b0f72b5a231bf9e1cf82614cac It might be the case mingw linker script is broken

[Bug testsuite/108192] g++.dg/cet-notrack-1.C searching for wrong function on mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108192 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to jon_y from comment #4) > Is Nightstrike's patch OK? I think it is correct but patches should goto gcc-patches@ really.

[Bug c++/108333] [10/11/12/13/trunk Regression] The behavior of direct-non-list-initialized is not correct, parsing error on valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108333 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.5 Summary|[10.3/10.4/11/1

[Bug c++/98995] [11/12/13 Regression] Copy elision not applied to members declared with [[no_unique_address]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98995 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yronglin777 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/108333] [10/11/12/13/trunk Regression] no_unique_address and direct-non-list-initialization is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108333 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/98995] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Copy elision not applied to members declared with [[no_unique_address]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98995 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|11.4|10.5 Summary|[11/12/13 Regres

[Bug driver/108328] gcc --help -v doesn't work correctly in some circumstances in gcc>=10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108328 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- So basically from what I understand is buildroot is doing this so they can hardcode supporting only 4k pages. THIS IS BROKEN. Someone could build a kernel and try to use a buildroot built sysroot and it will

[Bug target/106459] Compiler crashing for loongarch64-linux-gnu on windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106459 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/108334] Strange message in libgav1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108334 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you attach the preprocessed source? GCC thinks you are trying to do a memcpy to a null pointer really: cc1plus.exe: note: destination object is likely at address zero Which could mean either the code w

[Bug fortran/108336] Repeatable random_numbers with openmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108336 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Most likely there is only one seed per program so the random # generator is using locks. So the order is dependent on which thread calls the function. Now having a seed per thread might be a good idea but i

[Bug libfortran/108336] Repeatable random_numbers with openmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108336 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Yes the race condition is the following: the order of calling random_number on which thread first. init_rand_state definitely takes a lock when reading/writing from/to master_state. I see no other race con

[Bug target/108337] Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108337 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- It might be the case the stack pointer is not inlined when main is called from the kernel ... What target is this? X86_64-linux-gnu?

[Bug target/108337] Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108337 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/108004] x-form logical operations with dot instructions are not emitted.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108004 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/108337] Misaligned memory access issues when inline assembly is used with optimization on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108337 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pins

[Bug libfortran/108336] Repeatable random_numbers with openmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108336 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Maybe instead of: !$omp parallel nt = omp_get_num_threads() !$omp end parallel Do: nt = omp_get_max_threads() that should improve the situtation of not allocating enough for the array.

[Bug c++/108342] std::complex: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108342 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >The C++ standard even carves out a guarantee than `_Complex [float|double]` is >memory-layout-compatible with `std::complex<[float|double]>`. I know about _Atomic and std::atomic but not std::complex and

[Bug libstdc++/108342] std::complex: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108342 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Hmm: diff.cpp03.numerics

[Bug tree-optimization/108341] argument to `__builtin_ctz` should be assumed non-zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108341 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Not always. It depends on the definition of CTZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO. /* The value at zero is only defined for the BMI instructions LZCNT and TZCNT, not the BSR/BSF insns in the original isa. */ #defin

[Bug c++/108342] std::complex: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108342 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|libstdc++ |c++ --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/108342] std::complex: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108342 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5) > I don't know whether clang allows packing non-PODs, or just doesn't ever > warn for them, or has a special case for std::complex, or does something > smarter l

[Bug c++/108342] std::complex: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108342 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/108342] std::complex: ignoring packed attribute because of unpacked non-POD field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108342 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/108339] [10 only] riscv64-linux-gnu: fails to link libgcc_s.so on the GCC 10 branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108339 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.5

[Bug target/108339] [10 only] riscv64-linux-gnu: fails to link libgcc_s.so on the GCC 10 branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108339 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- r12-5799-g45116f342057b7

[Bug target/108339] [11/10 only] riscv64-linux-gnu: fails to link libgcc_s.so on the GCC 10 branch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108339 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|11.3.1, 12.2.1 |12.1.0 Summary|[10 only]

[Bug target/108346] gather/scatter loops optimized too often for znver4 (and other zens)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108346 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |target Blocks|

[Bug tree-optimization/108199] Bitfields, unions and SRA and storage_order_attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108199 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/108347] Incorrect error: ambiguous template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108347 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Well MSVC has an internal compiler error with this code.

[Bug c++/108347] Incorrect error: ambiguous template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108347 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 54223 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54223&action=edit testcase that removes the C++17isms and convert it over to C++11

[Bug c++/108347] Incorrect error: ambiguous template instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108347 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Created attachment 54223 [details] > testcase that removes the C++17isms and convert it over to C++11 The reason why I did this is because I wanted to see if ol

[Bug c++/101687] Scoped enumerators of a member enumeration shall not be referred by a class member access expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101687 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |SUSPENDED --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pi

[Bug ipa/99373] unused static function not being removed in some cases after optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99373 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- Co

[Bug c++/108361] Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/108361] Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > But the linker errors is a bug in your code really. Because the original code has references to both std::string and std::system_error .

[Bug c++/108361] Assembly code that is never called emitted on x86_64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108361 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Sorry PR 89139. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89139 ***

[Bug ipa/89139] GCC emits code for static functions that aren't used by the optimized code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89139 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org --- Co

[Bug c++/108218] [12/13 Regression] Constant arguments in the new expression is not checked in unevaluated operand since r12-5253-g4df7f8c79835d569

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108218 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#2392 "potentially-evaluated".

[Bug tree-optimization/108353] [13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 since r13-3898-gaf96500eea72c6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108353 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > The for (; j; j = j + 9) loop invokes undefined behavior: > > t.c: In function 'g': > t.c:11:17: warning: iteration 396462472 invokes undefined behavior > [-Wa

[Bug c++/98995] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Copy elision not applied to members declared with [[no_unique_address]] or a empty base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98995 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/108364] Construction from prvalue erroneously uses move-constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108364 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug tree-optimization/108351] [13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 since r13-4240-gfeeb0d68f1c708

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108351 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I noticed that with the C++ front-end early inline inlines f into main but with the C front-end it does not ...

[Bug tree-optimization/108365] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] Wrong code with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108365 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-10 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/108365] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] Wrong code with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108365 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.5

[Bug middle-end/108365] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] Wrong code with -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108365 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|6.1.0, 6.4.0| Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/108334] Strange message in libgav1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108334 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-11 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/108366] [12/13 Regression] Spurious stringop overflow, possibly alias-related

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108366 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Target Milestone|---

[Bug preprocessor/108372] [12 regression] -E -fdirectives-only crash

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108372 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug preprocessor/108244] [13 Regression] `pragma GCC diagnostic` and -E -fdirectives-only causes the preprocessor to become confused since r13-1544-ge46f4d7430c52104

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108244 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||thiago at kde dot org --- Comment #10 f

[Bug c/108375] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Some variably modified types not detected as such

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108375 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-01-11 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/108375] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Some variably modified types not detected as such

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108375 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2006-May/194375.html

[Bug c/108375] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Some variably modified types not detected as such

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108375 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2006-May/194375.html I can't tell if the Ada testcase was added or not.

[Bug tree-optimization/108334] Strange message in libgav1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108334 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug tree-optimization/108377] Unexpected 'exceeds maximum object size' diagnostic, wrong-code?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108377 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- So we have: const __SIZE_TYPE__ n = calc_n(259); #if 1 haystack = __builtin_malloc(n + 1); if (!haystack) __builtin_abort(); for (__SIZE_TYPE__ i = 0; i < n + 1; ++i) haystack[i] = '0'; #endi

[Bug tree-optimization/108377] Unexpected 'exceeds maximum object size' diagnostic, wrong-code?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108377 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Just adding: if (n+1 == 0) __builtin_unreachable(); Right before the first malloc removes the warning as expected.

[Bug target/108378] gcc generates fpu traps unsafe code for armv8-a+sve

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108378 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/96373] SVE miscompilation on vectorized division loop, leading to FP exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||evatux at gmail dot com --- Comment #12

[Bug target/96373] SVE miscompilation on vectorized division loop, leading to FP exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96373 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- vect__1.9_40 = .MASK_LOAD (_13, 64B, loop_mask_39); _15 = &MEM [(double *)s_9(D) + ivtmp_48 * 8]; vect__2.12_43 = .MASK_LOAD (_15, 64B, loop_mask_39); vect__3.13_44 = vect__1.9_40 / vect__2.12_43;

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >