[Bug target/93990] [x86] Silly code generation for _addcarry_u32/_addcarry_u64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93990 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > That leaves if there case where the first argument is non-zero and the > result is used. I think going the route that Jakub mentions is best for this > last case.

[Bug target/97387] we are near 2021, add carry intrinsic still does the wrong thing and generates silly code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97387 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||93990 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug middle-end/79173] add-with-carry and subtract-with-borrow support (x86_64 and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization See Also|

[Bug libstdc++/100851] Using std::thread on Alpine Linux/musl causes SIGABRT after main when unloading a shared library.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100851 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/100851] Using std::thread on Alpine Linux/musl causes SIGABRT after main when unloading a shared library.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100851 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|DUPLICAT

[Bug libgcc/91737] On Alpine Linux (libmusl) a statically linked C++ program which throws the first exception in two threads at the same time can busy spin on shutdown after main().

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91737 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||michaldrozd at protonmail dot ch --- Co

[Bug libstdc++/100851] Using std::thread on Alpine Linux/musl causes SIGABRT after main when unloading a shared library.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100851 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/100748] [12 regression] 30_threads/jthread/95989.cc fails after r12-843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- PR 95989 is specifically about static linking.

[Bug gcov-profile/90364] 521.wrf_r is 8-17% slower with PGO at -Ofast and native march/mtune

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #10) > All right, I understand what goes wrong. The benchmark builds 2 binaries: > wrf_r and diffwrf_521. Both of them contain pretty much the same objects > that *are

[Bug target/102211] [12 regression] ICE introduced by r12-3277

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102211 --- Comment #5 from Jim Wilson --- I have a WIP fix that lets me build newlib and glibc via riscv-gnu-toolchain. I haven't tried a bootstrap yet. I created a new predicate that uses the small bit of deleted code I need from validate_subregs, a

[Bug c++/69681] C/C++ FEs do not consider comparisons of distinct function pointers to be constant expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69681 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||55004 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/69681] C/C++ FEs do not consider comparisons of distinct function pointers to be constant expressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69681 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johelegp at gmail dot com --- Comment #9

[Bug c++/102249] Can't compare pointers to function during constant evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102249 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/102250] [11/12 Regression] python is not documented as a Prerequisite for building for riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102250 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Also is there a reason why this shell script could not be written in just plain shell script with sed and awk instead of python? Seems like adding python just for this script is heavy weight.

[Bug target/89954] missed optimization for signed extension for x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89954 --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu --- aarch64 dump--- Failed to match this instruction: (set (reg:SI 95) (xor:SI (zero_extend:SI (mem/c:QI (lo_sum:DI (reg/f:DI 97) (symbol_ref:DI ("*.LANCHOR0") [flags 0x182])) [

[Bug target/102250] [11/12 Regression] python is not documented as a Prerequisite for building for riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102250 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- The requirement was introduced by r11-5700.

[Bug target/102250] [11/12 Regression] python is not documented as a Prerequisite for building for riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102250 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |major CC|

[Bug target/102250] New: [11/12 Regression] python is not documented as a Prerequisite for building for riscv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102250 Bug ID: 102250 Summary: [11/12 Regression] python is not documented as a Prerequisite for building for riscv Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Key

[Bug testsuite/100748] [12 regression] 30_threads/jthread/95989.cc fails after r12-843

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100748 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Bernd E. analyzed this in the thread referenced in c#1. The test links staticly and we're pulling in the weak definition of pthread_join. I'm not sure why we're linking statically. Reverting to normal dy

[Bug c++/102249] New: Can't compare pointer to functions during constant evaluation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102249 Bug ID: 102249 Summary: Can't compare pointer to functions during constant evaluation Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid

[Bug target/91103] AVX512 vector element extract uses more than 1 shuffle instruction; VALIGND can grab any element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103 --- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu --- Fixed in GCC12.

[Bug target/101059] v4sf reduction not optimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101059 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- Fixed in GCC12.

[Bug target/101059] v4sf reduction not optimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101059 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8f323c712ea76cc4506b03895e9b991e4e4b2baf commit r12-3426-g8f323c712ea76cc4506b03895e9b991e4e4b2baf Author: liuhongt Date: Tue Sep

[Bug target/91103] AVX512 vector element extract uses more than 1 shuffle instruction; VALIGND can grab any element

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91103 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60eec23b5eda0f350e572586eee738eab0804a74 commit r12-3425-g60eec23b5eda0f350e572586eee738eab0804a74 Author: liuhongt Date: Wed Sep 8

[Bug target/44553] Cross compiling for ia64 fails as stdlib.h doesn't exist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44553 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/40363] Nonoptimal save/restore registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40363 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0 Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102220 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/96963] [10 Regression] -Wstringop-overflow false positive on -O3 or -O2 -ftree-vectorize when assigning consecutive char struct members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96963 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eugene.chereshnev at intel dot com ---

[Bug c++/102248] -Wstringop-overflow false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102248 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/60318] Documentation bug: C++ Misunderstandings: Implicit Copy-Assignment for Virtual Bases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/60318] Documentation bug: C++ Misunderstandings: Implicit Copy-Assignment for Virtual Bases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:03b8e26897fbddec10a703cf518280af675e6458 commit r9-9715-g03b8e26897fbddec10a703cf518280af675e6458 Author: Jonathan Wakely

[Bug c++/102248] New: -Wstringop-overflow false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102248 Bug ID: 102248 Summary: -Wstringop-overflow false positive Product: gcc Version: 10.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/60318] Documentation bug: C++ Misunderstandings: Implicit Copy-Assignment for Virtual Bases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9f52acb7dc74fb7b4591f98d81cdcf54b36df38 commit r10-10102-gb9f52acb7dc74fb7b4591f98d81cdcf54b36df38 Author: Jonathan Wake

[Bug c++/60318] Documentation bug: C++ Misunderstandings: Implicit Copy-Assignment for Virtual Bases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7b2e9bd1a3cdb502bfd837d56ef809817ef0db7 commit r11-8974-gd7b2e9bd1a3cdb502bfd837d56ef809817ef0db7 Author: Jonathan Wakel

[Bug c++/102247] Overload resolution with brace-init is ambiguous when it shouldn't be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this the same case as in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84849#c5 .

[Bug c++/102247] New: Overload resolution with brace-init is ambiguous when it shouldn't be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247 Bug ID: 102247 Summary: Overload resolution with brace-init is ambiguous when it shouldn't be Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug libgomp/96661] configure:16984: error: unsupported system, cannot find Fortran int kind=16

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96661 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 102246 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug libgomp/102246] [11 Regression] libgomp build broken on hppa64-hp-hpux*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102246 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libgomp/102246] [11 Regression] libgomp build broken on hppa64-hp-hpux*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102246 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- There is no reason why 64-bit target couldn't support 128-bit ints, and they are really required here. The OpenMP standards requires a Fortran kind for this and we need pointer + extra info. So, if 128-bit

[Bug libgomp/102246] New: [11 Regression] libgomp build broken on hppa64-hp-hpux*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102246 Bug ID: 102246 Summary: [11 Regression] libgomp build broken on hppa64-hp-hpux* Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug c/102245] [12 Regression] false int-in-bool-context warning with shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, seems the binary context is result of shorten_binary_op, we see the 1L and (((int)x) << 0) operands of BIT_AND_EXPR, result_type is therefore long int and shorten_binary_op uses convert to convert that (

[Bug bootstrap/102242] [12 regression] analyzer/engine.cc built with clang: /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:346:5: error: no member named 'fancy_abort'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242 --- Comment #3 from Gerald Pfeifer --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #1) > Sorry about the breakage. That's what my nightly testers are here for to catch. :) > I think I need to #define INCLUDE_UNIQUE_PTR before including system.h, >

[Bug bootstrap/102242] [12 regression] analyzer/engine.cc built with clang: /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:346:5: error: no member named 'fancy_abort'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/102245] [12 Regression] false int-in-bool-context warning with shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-08 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug c/102245] [12 Regression] false int-in-bool-context warning with shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Summary|false int-in-b

[Bug c/102245] false int-in-bool-context warning with shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- So this is a regression only on the trunk.

[Bug c/102245] false int-in-bool-context warning with shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I should mention this was reduced from drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/gmc_v6_0.c in the Linux kernel compiling for arm-linux-gnueabi but can reproduce the warning on x86_64 with -m32 option.

[Bug c/102245] New: false int-in-bool-context warning with shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102245 Bug ID: 102245 Summary: false int-in-bool-context warning with shift Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/60318] Documentation bug: C++ Misunderstandings: Implicit Copy-Assignment for Virtual Bases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60318 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3c64582372cf445eabc4f9e99def7e33fb0270ee commit r12-3423-g3c64582372cf445eabc4f9e99def7e33fb0270ee Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug target/102244] Arc: Error: operand out of range (0x0000000000001036 is not between 0xfffffffffffff000 and 0x0000000000000fff)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244 Giulio Benetti changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #6) > That's true, but if you look at the assembly there is no function call to > std::move, There is though, on line 10.

[Bug target/102244] Arc: Error: operand out of range (0x0000000000001036 is not between 0xfffffffffffff000 and 0x0000000000000fff)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244 --- Comment #2 from Giulio Benetti --- Created attachment 51427 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51427&action=edit Pre-processed hb-ot-shape-complex-use.cpp(hb-ot-shape-complex-use.s)

[Bug c++/102244] Arc: Error: operand out of range (0x0000000000001036 is not between 0xfffffffffffff000 and 0x0000000000000fff)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244 --- Comment #1 from Giulio Benetti --- Created attachment 51426 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51426&action=edit Pre-processed hb-ot-shape-complex-use.cpp(hb-ot-shape-complex-use.ii)

[Bug c++/102244] New: Arc: Error: operand out of range (0x0000000000001036 is not between 0xfffffffffffff000 and 0x0000000000000fff)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102244 Bug ID: 102244 Summary: Arc: Error: operand out of range (0x1036 is not between 0xf000 and 0x0fff) Product: gcc Version: 10.2

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 --- Comment #10 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #9) > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #7) > > This regresses okay. > > Still does. Shall I submit it for review, commit for you, or let it bit-rot? If you

[Bug fortran/98490] Unexpected out of bounds in array constructor with implied do loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98490 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > This comes from the construction of a local unique_ptr variable in: > > template > _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR > void > __unguarded_linear_insert(_Ra

[Bug fortran/97589] Segementation fault when allocating coarrays.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97589 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #28 from

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #2) > Hi, > > Thanks for the analysis! > > That basically allows me to reduce the testcase to something as simple as a > swap: Yes. The actual swaps done by s

[Bug middle-end/102243] [12 Regression] ice in get_range_query

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I suspect r12-3300-gece28da924dd

[Bug middle-end/102243] [12 Regression] ice in get_range_query

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ice in get_range_query |[12 Regression] ice in

[Bug c++/102243] New: ice in get_range_query

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102243 Bug ID: 102243 Summary: ice in get_range_query Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: u

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 --- Comment #6 from Federico Kircheis --- > are you expecting this to go under an existing warning flag, or a new one? Ideally -Wall, but there might already be some flags related to dangling pointers and references. > Your compiler explorer l

[Bug fortran/92805] gfortran: blanks within literal constants should not be allowed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92805 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug bootstrap/102242] [12 regression] analyzer/engine.cc built with clang: /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:346:5: error: no member named 'fancy_abort'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug bootstrap/102242] New: [11 regression] analyzer/engine.cc built with clang: /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:346:5: error: no member named 'fancy_abort'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102242 Bug ID: 102242 Summary: [11 regression] analyzer/engine.cc built with clang: /usr/include/c++/v1/typeinfo:346:5: error: no member named 'fancy_abort' Product: gcc

[Bug analyzer/102225] [12 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_int_cst, at analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:227 since r12-3237-geafa9d969237fd8f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug analyzer/102225] [12 Regression] ICE in get_or_create_int_cst, at analyzer/region-model-manager.cc:227 since r12-3237-geafa9d969237fd8f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102225 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e66b9f6779f46433b0e2c093b58403604ed131cc commit r12-3422-ge66b9f6779f46433b0e2c093b58403604ed131cc Author: David Malcolm Date: W

[Bug target/102224] [9/10 regession] wrong code for `x * copysign(1.0, x)` since r9-5298-g33142cf9cf82aa1f

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

[Bug target/102224] [9/10/11 regession] wrong code for `x * copysign(1.0, x)` since r9-5298-g33142cf9cf82aa1f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102224 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cb5690b8d2ce84fb943535bea0d587863cf57753 commit r11-8973-gcb5690b8d2ce84fb943535bea0d587863cf57753 Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug fortran/102240] [PDT] derived type parameter does not shadow variable name in enclosing scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102240 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-08 Ever confirme

[Bug target/102154] [12 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:2769 since r12-3277-gd2874d905647a1d146dafa60199d440e837adc4d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102154 --- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #15) > as discussed in > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-August/578437.html, allow > specific float-int subreg seems weird. Indiscriminately allowi

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 02:14:26PM +, ripero84 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 > > --- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- > 1) The gfortran manual

[Bug gcov-profile/90364] 521.wrf_r is 8-17% slower with PGO at -Ofast and native march/mtune

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90364 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10

[Bug c++/101874] [12 Regression] ICE with auto specifier for VLAs since r12-1933-ge66d0b7b87d105d2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101874 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/102228] lookup_anon_field is quadratic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102228 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to work|

[Bug c++/102228] lookup_anon_field is quadratic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102228 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:716a5836928ee6d8fb884d9a2fbc1b1386ec8994 commit r12-3421-g716a5836928ee6d8fb884d9a2fbc1b1386ec8994 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug fortran/102241] New: ICE when declaring derived type with a parameterized derived type member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102241 Bug ID: 102241 Summary: ICE when declaring derived type with a parameterized derived type member Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102221 --- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo --- Hi, Thanks for the analysis! That basically allows me to reduce the testcase to something as simple as a swap: #include #include #if defined(SMART) using ptr = std::unique_ptr; #else using ptr = i

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 --- Comment #2 from ripero84 at gmail dot com --- 1) The gfortran manual has its own entries for -pedantic and -pedantic-errors: -Wpedantic -pedantic Issue warnings for uses of extensions to Fortran. -pedantic also applies to C-langua

[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 #3 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Martin, maybe you can try moving late sink to before the last phiopt pass. If you mean the following then unfortunately that has not helped. diff --git a/gcc/

[Bug target/102107] protocol register (r12) corrupted before a tail call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:86e6268cff328e27ee6f90e2afc35b6f437a25cd commit r12-3418-g86e6268cff328e27ee6f90e2afc35b6f437a25cd Author: Segher Boessenkool

[Bug fortran/102240] New: [F03] derived type parameter does not shadow variable name in enclosing scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102240 Bug ID: 102240 Summary: [F03] derived type parameter does not shadow variable name in enclosing scope Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug middle-end/26163] [meta-bug] missed optimization in SPEC (2k17, 2k and 2k6 and 95)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26163 Bug 26163 depends on bug 102227, which changed state. Bug 102227 Summary: [12 Regression] Likely wrong code since r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227 What|Removed

[Bug target/102227] [12 Regression] Likely wrong code since r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/89984] Extra register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED

[Bug target/89984] Extra register move

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89984 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7485a52551d71db2e8bbfc4c484196bcc321a1cd commit r12-3417-g7485a52551d71db2e8bbfc4c484196bcc321a1cd Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: We

[Bug c/102239] New: powerpc suboptimal boolean test of contiguous bits

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102239 Bug ID: 102239 Summary: powerpc suboptimal boolean test of contiguous bits Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug tree-optimization/65206] Vectorized version of loop is removed.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65206 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/101548] dependence analysis fails with .MASK_STORE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101548 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 46391, which changed state. Bug 46391 Summary: false dependencies are computed after vectorization (#2) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46391 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/46391] false dependencies are computed after vectorization (#2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46391 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/96135] [9/10/11/12 regression] bswap not detected by bswap pass, unexpected results between optimization levels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96135 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > Note on the trunk for f and g at -O3 -msse4 (and -O3 on aarch64), GCC > produces: > _21 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(i_2(D)); > _22 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_21, _21, { 7, 6,

[Bug tree-optimization/96135] [9/10/11/12 regression] bswap not detected by bswap pass, unexpected results between optimization levels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96135 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Note on the trunk for f and g at -O3 -msse4 (and -O3 on aarch64), GCC produces: _21 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(i_2(D)); _22 = VEC_PERM_EXPR <_21, _21, { 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 }>; _18 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(_22);

[Bug libstdc++/101263] non-propagating-cache::emplace-deref missing constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101263 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1) > We might first need to implement P2231 (for constexpr optional) before this > function can be properly constexpr. I have a patch for that, but it's not upstre

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Federico Kircheis from comment #0) > Normally life-extension would kick in, but because we added an unnecessary > static_cast, it does not kick in and v is a dangling reference. I assume you

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- N.B AddressSanitizer will diagnose this at runtime.

[Bug target/102227] [12 Regression] Likely wrong code since r12-3369-g652bef70d392f9541b12ef65b461009c8c8fd54a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102227 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102223 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

  1   2   >