[Bug libstdc++/104395] alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc???

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC's option is -faligned-new -fsized-deallocation -std=c++98

[Bug c++/92385] extremely long and memory intensive compilation for brace construction of array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:119cea98f664764cce04963243c39c8f6d797d33 commit r12-7069-g119cea98f664764cce04963243c39c8f6d797d33 Author: Jason Merrill Date: W

[Bug c++/104300] [12 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2977 since r12-6326-ge948436eab818c52

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104300 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:119cea98f664764cce04963243c39c8f6d797d33 commit r12-7069-g119cea98f664764cce04963243c39c8f6d797d33 Author: Jason Merrill Date: W

[Bug libstdc++/104395] alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc???

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395 --- Comment #4 from cqwrteur --- also in all xxx_allocator.h including mt_allocator.h pool_allocator.h

[Bug libstdc++/104395] alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc???

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395 cqwrteur changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug libstdc++/104395] alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc???

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395 cqwrteur changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/104395] alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc???

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395 --- Comment #1 from cqwrteur --- /home/cqwrteur/myhome/gcc_build/native/wasm32-wasi/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/pool_allocator.h:274:16: error: '_Tp' does not refer to a value if (alignof(_Tp) > __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__)

[Bug libstdc++/104395] New: alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc???

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104395 Bug ID: 104395 Summary: alignof is a C++11 feature. src/c++98/bitmap_allocator.cc??? Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/104391] [9/10/11 Regression] bind(C) and allocatable or pointer attribute don't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug ipa/102059] Incorrect always_inline diagnostic in LTO mode with #pragma GCC target("cpu=power10")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059 --- Comment #30 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to pc from comment #27) > There was a commit related to this bug, but it is still in ASSIGNED state, > so I'm not sure if this was to be considered "fixed", but... > > Chip discovered that, with a bu

[Bug libgomp/104385] Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-05 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug tree-optimization/104394] Failure to optimize vector pattern for x < 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104394 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal

[Bug tree-optimization/104394] New: Failure to optimize vector pattern for x < 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104394 Bug ID: 104394 Summary: Failure to optimize vector pattern for x < 0 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tre

[Bug libgomp/104385] Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openmp --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jeline

[Bug libstdc++/104161] Potential Security Vulnerability: remove_all and symbolic link

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104161 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ebf6175464768983a2d8c82c2d47771ee89192b8 commit r12-7062-gebf6175464768983a2d8c82c2d47771ee89192b8 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libgomp/104385] Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- I can't get it to fail for me on x86_64-linux-gnu.

[Bug libgomp/104385] Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 --- Comment #3 from P.A. Wacrenier --- gdb output (x86_64 linux) Thread 22 "a.out" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. [Switching to Thread 0x7fffedd10700 (LWP 1363311)] priority_list_downgrade_task (child_task=0x7fffecc0, list=0x

[Bug libgomp/104385] Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 --- Comment #2 from P.A. Wacrenier --- Sorry, as a matter of fact it does not (always) work on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Utilisation des specs internes. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/autofs/unityaccount/ens/gcc/gcc_10.2.0/bin/../libexec/gcc

[Bug fortran/104393] incorrect results with elemental functions of scalar derived types with allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104393 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/104393] New: incorrect results with elemental functions of scalar derived types with allocatable components

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104393 Bug ID: 104393 Summary: incorrect results with elemental functions of scalar derived types with allocatable components Product: gcc Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11) Stat

[Bug libgomp/104385] Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-apple-darwin21 --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug c++/83264] std::initializer_list with a single element selects the wrong overload

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83264 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #8 f

[Bug c++/99273] List initialization prefers initializer_list a little too strongly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99273 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- Not this bug, but note that the comment and the code don't match in this transformation: "a negative value" becomes !tree_expr_maybe_real_minus_zero_p (@0) which is quite different. I am not sure the path with

[Bug c++/90816] -finstrument-functions-exclude-function-list improperly handles namespace/class definitions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90816 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/90809] -finstrument-functions-exclude-function-list mishandles comma escaping

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90809 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/104388] Request: A builtin to mark an object as invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104388 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug target/104117] [9,10,11,12 Regression] Darwin ppc64 uses invalid non-PIC address to access constants (in PIC code).

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104117 --- Comment #13 from Vladimir Makarov --- I think there are two code spots whose pitfalls resulted in the PR. The first one is in rs6000.cc::legitimate_lo_sum_address_p which permits wrong pic low-sum address. Another one is in lra-constraints

[Bug c++/104392] Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison of unsigned bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/104392] Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison of unsigned bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- clang rejects this too: :9:12: error: argument to 'operator<=>' cannot be narrowed from type 'unsigned int' to 'int' return left.a <=> right.a; ^ :9:23: error: argument to 'operator<=>' cannot

[Bug c++/104386] no_unique_address causes invalid member alignment of pod struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Hmm: https://github.com/itanium-cxx-abi/cxx-abi/issues/108

[Bug tree-optimization/101515] [11/12 Regression] ICE in pp_cxx_unqualified_id, at cp/cxx-pretty-print.c:128 since r11-6729-gadb520606ce3e1e1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101515 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/104391] [9/10/11 Regression] bind(C) and allocatable or pointer attribute don't work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.5 Keywords|

[Bug rtl-optimization/104387] aarch64: Redundant SXTH for “bag of bits” moves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104387 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/97747] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missed combine opt with logical ops after zero extended load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97747 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug tree-optimization/97747] [9/10/11/12 Regression] missed combine opt with logical ops after zero extended load

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97747 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug rtl-optimization/60749] combine is overly cautious when operating on volatile memory references

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60749 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/104392] New: Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison of unsigned bit field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104392 Bug ID: 104392 Summary: Unexpected Narrowing Warning when spaceship comparison of unsigned bit field Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/104391] New: Gfortran 9 regression with bind(C) and allocatable or pointer attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104391 Bug ID: 104391 Summary: Gfortran 9 regression with bind(C) and allocatable or pointer attribute Product: gcc Version: 9.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug ipa/102059] Incorrect always_inline diagnostic in LTO mode with #pragma GCC target("cpu=power10")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||12.0 Known to work|12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/100808] PPC: ISA 3.1 builtin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug ipa/102059] Incorrect always_inline diagnostic in LTO mode with #pragma GCC target("cpu=power10")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059 --- Comment #28 from Dan Horák --- comment #27 matches our experience in Fedora, still a build issue in Eigen with gcc12 and LTO

[Bug target/100808] PPC: ISA 3.1 builtin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by William Schmidt : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8cb748a31cd8c7ac9c88b6abc38ce077dd462a7a commit r12-7060-g8cb748a31cd8c7ac9c88b6abc38ce077dd462a7a Author: Bill Schmidt Date:

[Bug c++/104390] New: Tree check ICE for valid code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104390 Bug ID: 104390 Summary: Tree check ICE for valid code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assi

[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ah, of course it isn't NAN, it is infinity, but +-Inf * 0 is still NAN.

[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Changing it to double foo (void) { double a = __builtin_huge_val (); return a * 0.0; } shows ccp1 applies /* Maybe fold x * 0 to 0. The expressions aren't the same when x is NaN, since x * 0 is also

[Bug fortran/104311] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE out of memory since r9-6321-g4716603bf875ce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/104371] [x86] Failure to use optimize pxor+pcmpeqb+pmovmskb+cmp 0xFFFF pattern to ptest

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104371 --- Comment #2 from Gabriel Ravier --- Although I agree the pattern doesn't seem that useful at first, I've seen it crop up in several places, such as: - in pixman: https://github.com/servo/pixman/blob/master/pixman/pixman-sse2.c on line 181 -

[Bug fortran/104311] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE out of memory since r9-6321-g4716603bf875ce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2953e3d1b9b36b441f5a33d696760ed56742ee1e commit r9-9939-g2953e3d1b9b36b441f5a33d696760ed56742ee1e Author: Harald Anlauf D

[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug fortran/104311] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE out of memory since r9-6321-g4716603bf875ce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:837ad03ad4a95629a0d17108f5258568bebbf13f commit r10-10437-g837ad03ad4a95629a0d17108f5258568bebbf13f Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/104311] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE out of memory since r9-6321-g4716603bf875ce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104311 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7a0fab4bddce549380b2713a910127332a091e19 commit r11-9539-g7a0fab4bddce549380b2713a910127332a091e19 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug c/104389] [10/11/12 Regression] HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Prio

[Bug c/104389] New: HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104389 Bug ID: 104389 Summary: HUGE_VAL * 0.0 is no longer a NaN Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c As

[Bug ipa/102059] Incorrect always_inline diagnostic in LTO mode with #pragma GCC target("cpu=power10")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102059 pc at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pc at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug c++/104388] New: Request: A builtin to mark an object as invalid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104388 Bug ID: 104388 Summary: Request: A builtin to mark an object as invalid Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug fortran/103828] Type generated for CHARACTER(C_CHAR), VALUE arguments is wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103828 --- Comment #8 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- I'm not sure if it really counts as an ABI change, given that I know no existing target where this resulted in an actual change in the argument passing convention. (i.e., where that test actually f

[Bug rtl-optimization/104387] New: aarch64: Redundant SXTH for “bag of bits” moves

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104387 Bug ID: 104387 Summary: aarch64: Redundant SXTH for “bag of bits” moves Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancemen

[Bug c++/104386] New: no_unique_address causes invalid member alignment of pod struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104386 Bug ID: 104386 Summary: no_unique_address causes invalid member alignment of pod struct Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/104380] -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE -mabi=ieeelongdouble -std=c* wrong-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/104380] -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE -mabi=ieeelongdouble -std=c* wrong-code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104380 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d6fffc4bcd4afa0beb0efad4f3b95394aa15618 commit r12-7059-g8d6fffc4bcd4afa0beb0efad4f3b95394aa15618 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: F

[Bug target/100808] PPC: ISA 3.1 builtin documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100808 Bill Schmidt changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/104356] [12 Regression] divide by zero trap incorrectly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356 --- Comment #47 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Eric Botcazou : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f722e35ab3805de6eeace770508a9085944e93e commit r12-7058-g1f722e35ab3805de6eeace770508a9085944e93e Author: Eric Botcazou Date:

[Bug analyzer/101081] analyzer testsuite failures seen with new glibc due to malloc attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101081 Joel Teichroeb changed: What|Removed |Added CC||joel at teichroeb dot net --- Comment

[Bug libgomp/104385] New: Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104385 Bug ID: 104385 Summary: Segmentation fault when using nested dependent tasks Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/104356] [12 Regression] divide by zero trap incorrectly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356 --- Comment #46 from Eric Botcazou --- > I meant something like: > with System.Unsigned_Types; use System.Unsigned_Types; > > function F (X, Y : Unsigned) return Unsigned is > Z : Unsigned; > begin > if X >=2 then > return 0; > end if

[Bug target/50883] [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 --- Comment #18 from Sebastian Huber --- clang 11 produces this code for the attached test case: clang -O2 -S -o - pr50883.c -target arm clang-11.0: warning: unknown platform, assuming -mfloat-abi=soft clang-11.0: warning: unknown platform, ass

[Bug c++/104384] New: Heap corruption when initializing struct with co_await

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104384 Bug ID: 104384 Summary: Heap corruption when initializing struct with co_await Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug c++/90809] -finstrument-functions-exclude-function-list mishandles comma escaping

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90809 Thomas De Schampheleire changed: What|Removed |Added CC||patrickdepinguin at gmail dot

[Bug c++/90816] -finstrument-functions-exclude-function-list improperly handles namespace/class definitions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90816 Thomas De Schampheleire changed: What|Removed |Added CC||patrickdepinguin at gmail dot

[Bug c++/101783] unnecessary error when top level cv qualifier is dropped

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101783 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rs2740 at gmail dot com --- Comment #12

[Bug c++/69778] Bogus "qualifiers cannot be applied" error with redundant (but legal) 'typename'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69778 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org St

[Bug c++/80951] Deducing noexcept only works when also deducing something else

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80951 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/103642] [12 Regression] ICE in lower_omp_target: omp-low.c:12977 (fold_convert_loc) for omp target map(from: t.s->a[:N]) since r12-5835-g0ab29cf0bb68960c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103642 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug c++/99273] List initialization prefers initializer_list a little too strongly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99273 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/104383] User-defined conversion is preferred over standard-one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104383 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/104383] New: User-defined conversion is preferred over standard-one

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104383 Bug ID: 104383 Summary: User-defined conversion is preferred over standard-one Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/104356] [12 Regression] divide by zero trap incorrectly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104356 --- Comment #45 from Andrew Macleod --- > > That said, range-ops, from say > > [0,1] = [0,2] / y; > > may _not_ reason that 'y' is not 0 when non-call EH. That is, you need to be > careful on the reverse ops but I think not on the forward

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] [9/10/11 Regression] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] |[9/10/11 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/100499] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Different results with -fpeel-loops -ftree-loop-vectorize options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100499 --- Comment #40 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0898049ad9bf6c46e510b18aaafca4946802749f commit r12-7052-g0898049ad9bf6c46e510b18aaafca4946802749f Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug c++/104379] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given three times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Oh, btw - we'd also warn N times for an uninitialized variable use for example unless the location-based diagnostic suppression gets this right now - tree or GIMPLE no-warning flags definitely don't.

[Bug c++/104379] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given three times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379 --- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, redi at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379 > > --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- > So you can imagine what happens if you com

[Bug rtl-optimization/103006] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 or -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu by r7-7101

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103006 --- Comment #14 from Richard Biener --- There's an interesting case, a = BIRTH loop: b = DEATH a = DEATH b = BIRTH goto loop; where we end up having both a and b in the live-in set at the loop label but a is removed before we see the

[Bug middle-end/104381] [12 Regression] -gtoggle no longer applied when using optimize attribute since r12-4608-gb4702276615ff8d4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-04 Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/50883] [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 --- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou --- > Even if the performance impact is low, it does matter when optimizing for > size. Worth addressing for sure, but IMO not at expense of exposing calling conventions and other low-level stuff in GIMPLE.

[Bug fortran/104382] New: Finalization of parent components not compliant with standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104382 Bug ID: 104382 Summary: Finalization of parent components not compliant with standard Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/104381] [12 Regression] -gtoggle no longer applied when using optimize attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Err, it's worse(?) > ./xgcc -B. t.c -O2 -fdump-tree-optimized -c ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1979, cgraph_uid=1, symbol_order=0) int foo (int x) { [local count: 1073741824]: return

[Bug middle-end/104381] [12 Regression] -gtoggle no longer applied when using optimize attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 CC|

[Bug middle-end/104381] New: [12 Regression] -gtoggle no longer applied when using optimize attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104381 Bug ID: 104381 Summary: [12 Regression] -gtoggle no longer applied when using optimize attribute Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug target/50883] [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 --- Comment #16 from Richard Earnshaw --- And there are also cases where we end up with dead stack slots which can't be removed, so there's a stack size impact as well.

[Bug target/50883] [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 --- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw --- Even if the performance impact is low, it does matter when optimizing for size.

[Bug target/50883] [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- > But no, I don't remember any case from SPEC where it makes a difference > in the end. Judging from the amount of duplicates we get around > parameter / return issues people do run into this. Yes, but I'd

[Bug ipa/104377] Unreachable code in create_specialized_node of ipa-prop.c?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104377 --- Comment #1 from Feng Xue --- (In reply to Feng Xue from comment #0) > For function create_specialized_node(), the "node" to operated on seems > always to be an original cgraph node, never a clone node. From call graph > related to the functi

[Bug c++/104379] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given three times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- So you can imagine what happens if you combine constructor clones with templates! :-D template struct S { int i; S(int i) { (void) i; } }; S i(1); S j(1); whe! shad2.C: In constructor ‘S::S

[Bug fortran/102330] [12 Regression] ICE in expand_gimple_stmt_1, at cfgexpand.c:3932 since r12-980-g29a2f51806c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102330 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Of course exceptions would be vars that certainly don't appear in the IL yet, what I wrote about are vars that may appear there already. Generally, vars should be marked as addressable before gimplification

[Bug c++/104379] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given three times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > I suppose the same issue might happen with templates where we'd warn > once per instantiation? Yes indeed. Once for the primary template, and then again for

[Bug fortran/102330] [12 Regression] ICE in expand_gimple_stmt_1, at cfgexpand.c:3932 since r12-980-g29a2f51806c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102330 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you need to mark some var as addressable during omp lowering, then you need to treat it similarly to the task shared case, so during scan phase of that pass do something like: /* Taking addr

[Bug target/50883] [ARM] Suboptimal optimization for small structures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 4 Feb 2022, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50883 > > Eric Botcazou changed: > >What|Removed |Add

[Bug c++/104379] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -Wshadow warning given three times

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104379 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- I suspect we warn once for each CTOR clone, whilst with checking DECL_FROM_INLINE we excluded all but the master clone. "from inline" is of course misleading here. I suppose the same issue might happen wi

  1   2   >