[Bug fortran/82774] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] Structure constructor and deferred type parameter character component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82774 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/104429] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_variable, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:3056 since r9-2664-g1312bb902382cb48

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104429 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/103389] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in estimate_move_cost, at tree-inline.c:4191 since r9-5784-ga3df90b9672562d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103389 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/87946] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_walk_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:10506

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87946 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/87496] ICE in aggregate_value_p at gcc/function.c:2046

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87496 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #18 f

[Bug fortran/100193] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_assignment, at fortran/trans-expr.c:10837

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100193 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/105152] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:5647 since r9-5372-gbbf18dc5d248a79a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105152 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/103389] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in estimate_move_cost, at tree-inline.c:4191 since r9-5784-ga3df90b9672562d0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103389 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue Ma

[Bug fortran/87946] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_walk_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.c:10506

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87946 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue May

[Bug target/87496] ICE in aggregate_value_p at gcc/function.c:2046

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87496 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue Ma

[Bug fortran/82774] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] Structure constructor and deferred type parameter character component

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82774 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue Ma

[Bug fortran/104429] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_variable, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:3056 since r9-2664-g1312bb902382cb48

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104429 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue Ma

[Bug fortran/105152] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_gfc_desc_to_cfi_desc, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:5647 since r9-5372-gbbf18dc5d248a79a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105152 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue Ma

[Bug fortran/100193] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in alloc_scalar_allocatable_for_assignment, at fortran/trans-expr.c:10837

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100193 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 commit r14-870-g6c95fe9bc0553743098eeaa739f14b885050fa42 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Tue Ma

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- the OOB read seems to go away with --enable-checking=yes,rtl,extra (previously had --enable-checking=release)...? (at least for 13)

[Bug tree-optimization/101805] Max -> bool0 | bool1 Min -> a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101805 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/109424] ~((x > y) ? x : y) produces two not instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109424 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b06cfb62229f17eca59fa4aabf853d7e17e2327b commit r14-868-gb06cfb62229f17eca59fa4aabf853d7e17e2327b Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Mon

[Bug tree-optimization/107888] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed min/max transformation in phiopt due to VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107888 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b06cfb62229f17eca59fa4aabf853d7e17e2327b commit r14-868-gb06cfb62229f17eca59fa4aabf853d7e17e2327b Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Mo

[Bug c++/109870] Miscomputation of return type of unevaluated lambda in type alias in template context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109870 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Most likely a dup of a bug that PR 107430 depends on.

[Bug c++/109870] New: Miscomputation of return type of unevaluated lambda in type alias in template context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109870 Bug ID: 109870 Summary: Miscomputation of return type of unevaluated lambda in type alias in template context Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug rtl-optimization/109858] [14 Regression] r14-172 caused some SPEC2017 bmk to degrade on Power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858 --- Comment #6 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #5) > (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3) > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2) > > > Does https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/617431.html help? >

[Bug tree-optimization/90087] Suboptimal codegen for x < 0 ? x - INT_MIN : x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90087 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- THis way with type_min and type_max filled out correctly. (simplify (cond (lt @0 integer_zero_p) (minus @0 INTEGER_CST@1) @0) (if (TYPE_SIGNED (type) && wi::to_widest(@0) == type_min(@0)) (bit_ior @0 { b

[Bug rtl-optimization/109858] [14 Regression] r14-172 caused some SPEC2017 bmk to degrade on Power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858 --- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #3) > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #2) > > Does https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-May/617431.html help? > > Sorry, I just measured those degraded bmks

[Bug rtl-optimization/109858] [14 Regression] r14-172 caused some SPEC2017 bmk to degrade on Power

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109858 --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu --- Created attachment 55091 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55091&action=edit Only use NO_REGS in cost calculation when !hard_regno_mode_ok for GENERAL_REGS and mode.

[Bug tree-optimization/109869] New: comparing SCHAR_MIN and SCHAR_MAX but with widden type could be optimized better

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109869 Bug ID: 109869 Summary: comparing SCHAR_MIN and SCHAR_MAX but with widden type could be optimized better Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keyword

[Bug c/109863] RFE: more consistent flex array initialization: lift static storage requirement in gnu2x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109863 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > Note that the entire "initializing a flexible array member" thing is a GNU > extension and not supported by the standard. So GCC is free to support the > constexpr case

[Bug c/109863] RFE: more consistent flex array initialization: lift static storage requirement in gnu2x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109863 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/77899] incorrect VR_RANGE for a signed char function argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77899 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/101805] Max -> bool0 | bool1 Min -> a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101805 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch URL|

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- Jakub, assign this to me if you think we should go down that route unless you want to take the patch further.

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55090 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55090&action=edit Patch which I came up with This patch adds back zero_sized_field_decl but keeps the call to is_empty_type too

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #10 from Sam James --- fwiw, on glibc, I don't get the oob read w/ valgrind but still the ICE as you've already found.

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- The ICE started with r13-436-gaf34279921f4bb95b07c0be but the undesirable store is there already since r12-2975-g32c3a75390623a0470df52.

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > That might have been caused by r12-1150-g34aae6b561871d . I will look into > it soon because we should not be emitting an assignment here ... Yes it was introdu

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109806#c15 .

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- A little more reduced: ``` struct ClockImpl { virtual void addRef(); long tv_nsec; int : 0; }; void f() { ClockImpl b{}; } ``` So maybe this is a gimplifier issue producing the assignment to the zero

[Bug tree-optimization/109806] [13/14 Regression] 13.1.0 cc1plus stack smashing crash with C array of complex structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109806 --- Comment #16 from Sam James --- Filed my musl one as PR109868, sorry for clogging up this one!

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Hmm: D.2948._startTime.D.2792 = 0; That seems wrong. Reduced further: ``` struct SimpleRefCounted { virtual void addRef(); }; struct ClockImpl : SimpleRefCounted { long tv_nsec; int : 0; }; void f(

[Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |tree-optimization Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/109806] [13/14 Regression] 13.1.0 cc1plus stack smashing crash with C array of complex structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109806 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- That ICE is because layout_class_type calls c_build_bitfield_integer_type with width of 0 and that type is then seen by ranger for some reason: #7 0x00c4eee1 in layout_class_type (t=, virtuals_p=0x

[Bug c++/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault when building small C++ program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Created attachment 55089 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55089&action=edit clock.ii (reduced)

[Bug c++/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault when building small C++ program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 55088 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55088&action=edit clock.ii.orig

[Bug c++/109868] New: [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault when building small C++ program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109868 Bug ID: 109868 Summary: [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation fault when building small C++ program Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug tree-optimization/109806] [13/14 Regression] 13.1.0 cc1plus stack smashing crash with C array of complex structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109806 --- Comment #14 from Sam James --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #13) > The 128KB stack size is for *secondary* threads on musl (i.e. those created > via pthread_create). The main thread has the same stack as on glibc (GCC > extend

[Bug tree-optimization/109806] [13/14 Regression] 13.1.0 cc1plus stack smashing crash with C array of complex structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109806 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #8 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu --- I just tried to send you a zip file with all the code and instructions (see below), but it is over 6Mb in size, and was rejected. Where can I put it that you can access it? I have put the

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #7 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu --- Sorry I can't simplify this down to a nice compact piece of code, but ... In the attached test_case.zip file are all the *.f90 files, makefile, and some library files that work on ubuntu w

[Bug tree-optimization/101805] Max -> bool0 | bool1 Min -> a & b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101805 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|patch | URL|https://gcc.gnu.org

[Bug c++/109867] New: -Wswicht-default reports missing default in coroutine

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109867 Bug ID: 109867 Summary: -Wswicht-default reports missing default in coroutine Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/109720] -Wmaybe-uninitialized triggering when I can see no path that would allow it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109720 --- Comment #7 from Paul Smith --- Just to note this code also throws this warning in GCC 12.3 but it doesn't complain in GCC 11.3 which is what I was using before.

[Bug tree-optimization/109806] [13/14 Regression] 13.1.0 cc1plus stack smashing crash with C array of complex structs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109806 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org See Also

[Bug fortran/109861] Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109861 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/109861] Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109861 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Scot Breitenfeld from comment #3) > I guess the issue is whether marking TYPE(C_PTR) as CLOBBER is correct. I > looked through the 2018 standard and could not locate anything that > a

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #14 from Thomas Schwinge --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12) > Note that there's a gnulib module for flock: > https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/flock.html I'd see that one -- but it also says: "the rep

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to gary.wh...@colostate.edu from comment #5) > (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4) > > I assume you've also tried with -fcheck=all. > > Your report states you're using og12. If >

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #5 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #4) > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 07:11:17PM +, Gary.White at ColoState dot edu > wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 > > (I

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek --- And fcntl in tclx. Anyway, I think choosing between flock(1) and some python file locking would be better than using perl which is only needed in maintainer mode and not otherwise.

[Bug fortran/109861] Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109861 --- Comment #3 from Scot Breitenfeld --- I see the same issue with NAG, regardless of the optimization level. Our CI testing had missed it because this was a parallel test, and we don't test parallel with NAG. I guess the issue is whether marki

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager --- Note that there's a gnulib module for flock: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/flock.html

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl --- On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 07:11:17PM +, Gary.White at ColoState dot edu wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 > (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > > (In reply to gary.wh...@colostat

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 --- Comment #3 from GARY.WHITE at ColoState dot edu --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > (In reply to gary.wh...@colostate.edu from comment #0) > > Created attachment 55087 [details] > > set of subroutines where moving mc11ad inside the con

[Bug bootstrap/82856] --enable-maintainter-mode broken by incompatiblity of gcc's required automake and modern Perl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82856 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/109861] Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109861 --- Comment #2 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #1) > I think that you might want to cross-check your testcase with the NAG > compiler, or some other compiler which provides a means to initialize > INTENT(OUT) a

[Bug rtl-optimization/109866] New: Sometimes using sub/test instead just test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109866 Bug ID: 109866 Summary: Sometimes using sub/test instead just test Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #11 from Thomas Schwinge --- (In reply to myself from comment #10) > Could we easily build a portable 'flock'-like using 'fcntl' locking > primitives? (, for example.)

[Bug fortran/109865] different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-05-15 Statu

[Bug fortran/109861] Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109861 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-05-15 Statu

[Bug fortran/109865] New: different results when routine moved inside the contains statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109865 Bug ID: 109865 Summary: different results when routine moved inside the contains statement Product: gcc Version: og12 (devel/omp/gcc-12) Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug target/105719] RFE: fixincludes should handle Frameworks

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105719 --- Comment #5 from Bruce Korb --- It's been a long time since I mucked with fixincludes. My first guess, without going back and reading code, would be to provide fixincludes with a list of trees to traverse and not have it burned into fixinclud

[Bug c++/109864] excplicit constructor considered during overload resolution leads to ambiguity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109864 Arsen Arsenović changed: What|Removed |Added CC||arsen at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/109864] excplicit constructor considered during overload resolution leads to ambiguity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109864 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note there are some C++ defect reports in this area And this is most likely a dup of another bug.

[Bug c++/109864] New: excplicit constructor considered during overload resolution leads to ambiguity

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109864 Bug ID: 109864 Summary: excplicit constructor considered during overload resolution leads to ambiguity Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug fortran/109846] Pointer-valued function reference rejected as actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109846 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa0569e90efe8a5cb895a3f50dd502f849940828 commit r14-863-gfa0569e90efe8a5cb895a3f50dd502f849940828 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Su

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #36 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76e11280e79c5dd5089c17d5726cae9a5a21bc2e commit r14-862-g76e11280e79c5dd5089c17d5726cae9a5a21bc2e Author: Aldy Hernandez Date:

[Bug other/105819] comma `,` in directory name causes build to fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105819 --- Comment #17 from bug-reports.delphin at laposte dot net --- First of all, thank you very much. You were stronly right. In fact, it was not a PATH error, but a folder name error. I check it again and it was true : unfortunately, I changed a d

[Bug c/109828] [13/14 Regression] static compound literal with flexible array in initializer leads to invalid size and ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109828 --- Comment #8 from Yann Droneaud --- (In reply to Yann Droneaud from comment #7) > I've also experimented compound literal initialization at block level > instead of file level. Except in case it's not supported, it shows the same > issue at bl

[Bug c/109863] New: RFE: more consistent flex array initialization: lift static storage requirement in gnu2x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109863 Bug ID: 109863 Summary: RFE: more consistent flex array initialization: lift static storage requirement in gnu2x Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/109862] IV-OPTs could use int but still uses smaller sized for IV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109862 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/109862] New: IV-OPTs could use int but still uses smaller sized for IV

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109862 Bug ID: 109862 Summary: IV-OPTs could use int but still uses smaller sized for IV Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug tree-optimization/109852] Making of gcc13 errors out compiling libcpp/charset.cc with Wstringop-overflow Error with "-march=native -O3 "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109852 --- Comment #5 from Erich --- The output of -v -> Lesen der Spezifikationen von /home//software/gcc13/host-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/prev-gcc/specs COLLECT_GCC=/home//software/gcc13/host-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/prev-gcc/xg++ Ziel: x86_64-pc-linux-

[Bug tree-optimization/109852] Making of gcc13 errors out compiling libcpp/charset.cc with Wstringop-overflow Error with "-march=native -O3 "

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109852 --- Comment #4 from Erich --- Created attachment 55086 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55086&action=edit Compressed preprocessed charset.i file

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109241 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:396a4e76afec30d2461638f569cae18955eb4ad2 commit r12-9539-g396a4e76afec30d2461638f569cae18955eb4ad2 Author: Jason Merrill

[Bug c++/109860] ICE: in make_typename_type with redudant template in requires with typename

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109860 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-05-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/109860] ICE: in make_typename_type with redudant template in requires with typename

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109860 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||8.1.0 Summary|ICE: in make_t

[Bug c++/109859] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE on concept mis-typed as template type parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/109859] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE on concept mis-typed as template type parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109859 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code Target Milestone|

[Bug libgcc/109712] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 --- Comment #8 from Carlos Galvez --- Upon closer inspection, it turns out we were building with GCC 7, but then using libgcc_s.so.1 and libstdc++.so.6 from GCC trunk at runtime (via LD_LIBRARY_PATH). Building with GCC trunk instead solves the s

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/109857] Debian stable's tzdata 2021a has bad data that cannot be parsed by libstdc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109857 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||http://bugs.debian.org/1036

[Bug fortran/109861] New: Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109861 Bug ID: 109861 Summary: Optimization is marking uninitialized C_PTR being passed to a C function, causes segfault. Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/109857] tzdata 2021a has bad data that cannot be parsed by libstdc++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109857 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0) > On debian stable the tzdata.zi file is from version 2021a of the IANA time > zone database and contains this line: > > R K 2023 Max - O lastTh 24 0 - This

[Bug c/109828] [13/14 Regression] static compound literal with flexible array in initializer leads to invalid size and ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109828 --- Comment #7 from Yann Droneaud --- I've also experimented compound literal initialization at block level instead of file level. Except in case it's not supported, it shows the same issue at block level as file level. https://godbolt.org/z/vn

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- r5-3553 uses if {![catch {open $path {RDWR CREAT EXCL} 0600} fd]} { to determine which make check invocation should be given a particular batch of tests (in an initially empty directory), could you use that i

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #7 from Thomas Schwinge --- > Resolved for GCC 14. Not planning on backporting to release branches (but > could, if desired). Unfortunately not: flock is completely unpor

[Bug testsuite/91884] libgomp testsuite: (not) using a specific driver for C++, Fortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91884 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libgomp/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c3b30ef9e0578509bdaf59c13da4a212fe6c2ba commit r14-855-g6c3b30ef9e0578509bdaf59c13da4a212fe6c2ba Author: Thomas Schwinge Date:

[Bug libgomp/66005] libgomp make check time is excessive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e797db5c744f7b4e110f23a495fca8e6b8aebe83 commit r14-854-ge797db5c744f7b4e110f23a495fca8e6b8aebe83 Author: Rainer Orth Date: Thu

  1   2   >