[Bug sanitizer/109698] gcc/g++ build/link fails for libhwasan.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109698 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/109698] gcc/g++ build/link fails for libhwasan.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109698 --- Comment #7 from Nathan Ridge --- Based on some searching around for other users running into this error, this seems to be caused by an ld bug which was fixed in 2.32: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24458

[Bug sanitizer/109698] gcc/g++ build/link fails for libhwasan.so

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109698 Nathan Ridge changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zeratul976 at hotmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug target/111064] 5-10% regression of parest on icelake between g:d073e2d75d9ed492de9a8dc6970e5b69fae20e5a (Aug 15 2023) and g:9ade70bb86c8744f4416a48bb69cf4705f00905a (Aug 16)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111064 --- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu --- > > [liuhongt@intel gather_emulation]$ ./gather.out > ;./nogather_xmm.out;./nogather_ymm.out > elapsed time: 1.75997 seconds for gather with 3000 iterations > elapsed time: 2.42473 seconds for no_gather_

[Bug c++/111222] ICE on basic_string_view and alias templates with missing template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111222 --- Comment #2 from Steven Xia --- interesting

[Bug c++/111222] ICE on basic_string_view and alias templates with missing template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111222 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||accepts-invalid Summary|[c++

[Bug tree-optimization/111221] Floating point handling a*1.0 vs. a+0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111221 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- That is GCC will remove additions of -0.0: double addneg0 (double a) { return a + -0.0; } Gets optimized to just `return a;`.

[Bug c++/111222] New: ICE on basic_string_view with missing template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111222 Bug ID: 111222 Summary: ICE on basic_string_view with missing template argument Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug tree-optimization/111221] Floating point handling a*1.0 vs. a+0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111221 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/111221] New: Floating point handling a*1.0 vs. a+0.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111221 Bug ID: 111221 Summary: Floating point handling a*1.0 vs. a+0.0 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-opt

[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 CC||stevenxia990430 at gmail dot com --- C

[Bug c++/111220] ICE with std::integral in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111220 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/111220] New: ICE with std::integral in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111220 Bug ID: 111220 Summary: ICE with std::integral in template Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug tree-optimization/110111] bool patterns that should produce a?b:c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110111 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- f1: _6 = b_2(D) ^ c_3(D); _7 = a_1(D) & _6; _4 = c_3(D) ^ _7; Which was done due to: /* (x & ~m) | (y & m) -> ((x ^ y) & m) ^ x */ (simplify (bit_ior:c (bit_and:cs @0 (bit_not @2)) (bit_and:cs @1 @2)

[Bug middle-end/110983] -fpatchable-function-entry is missing in Option Summary page

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110983 --- Comment #5 from Mao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > `make html` is the way to build the HTML web pages ... Thanks for the help. Yes, I have confirmed with the generated HTML as well. My patch can fix it.

[Bug middle-end/110983] -fpatchable-function-entry is missing in Option Summary page

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110983 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Mao from comment #3) > Created attachment 55810 [details] > invoke-doc-patch > > I think this can help fix the issue. > I am not sure how to build the HTML web pages. But I also checked the man

[Bug tree-optimization/111149] bool0 != bool1 should be expanded as bool0 ^ bool1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|middle-end |tree-optimization --- Comment #2 from A

[Bug middle-end/110983] -fpatchable-function-entry is missing in Option Summary page

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110983 Mao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sray at live dot com --- Comment #3 from Mao ---

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- I have a patch which is able to optimize this to: t1_3 = b_1(D) >= a_2(D); _6 = b_1(D) > a_2(D); _4 = t1_3 ^ _6; But then we need to handle some simplifications for ^. I will handle that next week

[Bug tree-optimization/95185] Failure to optimize specific kind of sign comparison check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- I have a patch which converts this into: _1 = x_4(D) < 0; _2 = y_5(D) <= 0; _3 = _1 ^ _2;

[Bug target/110943] RISC-V: vmv.v.x and vmv.s.x pattern combine error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110943 Lehua Ding changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/110943] RISC-V: vmv.v.x and vmv.s.x pattern combine error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110943 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Lehua Ding : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:973eb0deb467c79cc21f265a710a81054cfd3e8c commit r14-3535-g973eb0deb467c79cc21f265a710a81054cfd3e8c Author: Lehua Ding Date: Tue Aug

[Bug fortran/111218] Conflict in BIND(C) INTERFACEs in two Modules leads to ICE.

--- Comment #1 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (tested with gcc version 14.0.0 20230828 (experimental) [master > r14-3528-gc3669bb677b] (GCC) No ICE with a 14.0.0 20230824 gfortran

[Bug tree-optimization/107880] bool tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin

[Bug c/111219] -Wformat-truncation false negative with %p modifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219 --- Comment #2 from Nick Desaulniers --- Ah ok that makes sense. Would it be possible to get that behavior documented on this page? https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html#index-Wformat-truncation We can probably modify clang

[Bug c/111219] -Wformat-truncation false negative with %p modifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/111219] New: -Wformat-truncation false negative with %p modifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111219 Bug ID: 111219 Summary: -Wformat-truncation false negative with %p modifier Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||95185 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinsk

[Bug tree-optimization/107880] bool tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880 Bug 107880 depends on bug 107881, which changed state. Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/107887] (bool0 > bool1) | bool1 is not optimized to bool0 | bool1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107887 Bug 107887 depends on bug 107881, which changed state. Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug testsuite/111216] [14 regression] instructions counts for vector tests change after r14-3258-ge7a36e4715c716

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111216 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/95185] Failure to optimize specific kind of sign comparison check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug bootstrap/111141] Compiling gcc-13.2.0 on Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS, problem asm-generic/errno.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to etienne_lorrain from comment #3) > Unlike for ARM64 host compiling a native compiler, you need to say such > --disable-multilib for amd64 compiling a native compiler. Well aarch64 (arm64 [which

[Bug bootstrap/111141] Compiling gcc-13.2.0 on Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS, problem asm-generic/errno.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41 --- Comment #3 from etienne_lorrain at yahoo dot fr --- Just reporting that the problem do not appears when --disable-multilib is asked at the configure stage. Unlike for ARM64 host compiling a native compiler, you need to say such --disable-mult

[Bug tree-optimization/107880] bool tautology missed optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107880 Bug 107880 depends on bug 107881, which changed state. Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/107887] (bool0 > bool1) | bool1 is not optimized to bool0 | bool1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107887 Bug 107887 depends on bug 107881, which changed state. Bug 107881 Summary: (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/95185] Failure to optimize specific kind of sign comparison check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95185 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/107881] (a <= b) == (b >= a) should be optimized to (a == b)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107881 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/101676] ^ not changed to | if the non-zero don't overlap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101676 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > why is | better than ^? Just to reply to this. The reasoning from simplify-rtx.cc: /* If we are XORing two things that have no bits in common, c

[Bug tree-optimization/111147] bitwise_inverted_equal_p can be used in the `(x | y) & (~x ^ y)` pattern to catch more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug c++/111160] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE on assigning volatile through ternary operator

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug testsuite/111216] [14 regression] instructions counts for vector tests change after r14-3258-ge7a36e4715c716

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111216 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-08-28 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug testsuite/111215] New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug testsuite/111215] New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a commit r14-3529-gb7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Mo

[Bug tree-optimization/111217] variant of cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111217 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a commit r14-3529-gb7f9ee7fb89fc9c48f03970e8e6581c7bae58f5a Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Mo

[Bug fortran/111218] New: Conflict in BIND(C) INTERFACEs in two Modules leads to ICE.

cktrace with any bug report. See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions. (tested with gcc version 14.0.0 20230828 (experimental) [master r14-3528-gc3669bb677b] (GCC)

[Bug tree-optimization/111217] New: variant of cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111217 Bug ID: 111217 Summary: variant of cond-bool-2.c fails Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug testsuite/111215] New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- So there might be two ways of fixing this: [local count: 1073741824]: if (a_3(D) != 0) goto ; [50.00%] else goto ; [50.00%] [local count: 536870912]: if (b_2(D) != 0) goto ; [50.00%]

[Bug middle-end/111209] GCC fails to understand adc pattern what its document describes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209 --- Comment #5 from cqwrteur --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > > Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or >

[Bug middle-end/111209] GCC fails to understand adc pattern what its document describes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or long > > long for 32-bit arches)? > > Well, I'

[Bug middle-end/111209] GCC fails to understand adc pattern what its document describes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209 --- Comment #3 from cqwrteur --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or long > long for 32-bit arches)? Well, I've presented this merely as an illustrative example. T

[Bug middle-end/111209] GCC fails to understand adc pattern what its document describes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-08-28 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/111209] GCC fails to understand adc pattern what its document describes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111209 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Just use __int128 addition if all you want is double-word addition (or long long for 32-bit arches)?

[Bug testsuite/111215] New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug testsuite/111216] New: [14 regression] instructions counts for vector tests change after r14-3258-ge7a36e4715c716

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111216 Bug ID: 111216 Summary: [14 regression] instructions counts for vector tests change after r14-3258-ge7a36e4715c716 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/111107] i686-w64-mingw32 does not realign stack when __attribute__((aligned)) or __attribute__((vector_size)) are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07 Gabriel Ivăncescu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gabrielopcode at gmail dot com ---

[Bug other/111215] New: New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111215 Bug ID: 111215 Summary: New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/cond-bool-2.c fails Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug fortran/102417] Wrong error message about character length with -std=f2018

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102417 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|diagn

[Bug target/111171] [14 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at rtl.h:2297 at -O1 on riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71 --- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > Can you try > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-August/627024.html? The patch * combine.cc (simplify_compare_const): Properly handle unsigned

[Bug libgomp/111214] New: omp_get_num_procs: Improve documentation - especially for devices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111214 Bug ID: 111214 Summary: omp_get_num_procs: Improve documentation - especially for devices Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: documentatio

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #18 from Thorsten Glaser --- I cannot, unfortunately. But I have found _another_ “mitigation”: varsub() is static and has only one caller: https://evolvis.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=alioth/mksh.git;a=blob;f=eval.c;h=cb9

[Bug target/111171] [14 Regression] ICE: in decompose, at rtl.h:2297 at -O1 on riscv64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #17 from Thorsten Glaser --- Hm, okay, I’ll try to find if I can trigger it in glibc/x32 then…

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #16 from Thorsten Glaser --- If I add -maddress-mode=long to the build of the expr.c file, then link it with the rest, it still fails. I’m not sure about reducing, and not sure about the cross-anything, but I *did* get it to fail on

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu --- We need a testcase which can be reproduced with glibc since the bug may be in other parts of dietlibc.

[Bug c++/111173] G++ allows constinit functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=73 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 Uroš Bizjak changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --- Comment #1

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #13 from Thorsten Glaser --- The interesting part is around the occurrence of… # eval.c:399: sp = cstrchr(sp, '\0') + 1; … in the .s files (it occurs thrice, the first is the beginning of the setup part, t

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #12 from Thorsten Glaser --- Created attachment 55808 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55808&action=edit tarball (.xz) with preprocessed and assembly output I’ve verified (back to unmodified source) that it is in

[Bug target/111212] [13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Malaterre --- reduced: % g++ -maltivec -mcpu=power8 -O2 -c testcase.i testcase.i:15:30: warning: '{anonymous}::m {anonymous}::n(a) [with f = short int]' used but never defined 15 | template m n(a); |

[Bug c/111059] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE: in gimplify_expr, at gimplify.cc:17253

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111059 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #11 from Thorsten Glaser --- OK, to summarise: When using the original code but providing a wrapper function (in a separate CU) for strchr, it works. When replacing the strchr with strlen (which GCC also does), it fails even withou

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #10 from Thorsten Glaser --- oh no, wait, that was for strchr… the strlen one… but, yeah, that too: extern size_t xstrlen(const char *s); and changing the line again to… sp += xstrlen(sp) + 1; … an

[Bug target/111165] [13 regression] builtin strchr miscompiles on Debian/x32 with dietlibc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 --- Comment #9 from Thorsten Glaser --- > Does providing your own (trivially correct) strlen implementation in a > separate CU also fix the issue? Even providing one that just calls dietlibc’s (in a separate CU) fixes the issue, so I’m very su

[Bug tree-optimization/111211] No warning for iterator going out of scope for writing to array of inline-asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||inline-asm Summary|No warnin

[Bug libstdc++/104167] Implement C++20 std::chrono::utc_clock, std::chrono::tzdb etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167 --- Comment #10 from Christophe Lyon --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9) > (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #8) > > On arm-eabi targets (thus, using newlib), we've noticed new errors: > > New since when? These files haven

[Bug tree-optimization/111146] Some patterns in match.pd are no longer needed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/111146] Some patterns in match.pd are no longer needed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cbde03abe5dbba13b992a3b610efe43aefc0e234 commit r14-3527-gcbde03abe5dbba13b992a3b610efe43aefc0e234 Author: Andrew Pinski Date: Su

[Bug libstdc++/104167] Implement C++20 std::chrono::utc_clock, std::chrono::tzdb etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #8) > On arm-eabi targets (thus, using newlib), we've noticed new errors: New since when? These files haven't changed in the last two weeks.

[Bug c/111211] No warning for iterator going out of scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Lehua Ding from comment #3) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > We diagnose this after unrolling, so the difference is whether we unroll or > > not. > > But based on the assembly

[Bug c/111210] Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-4849-gf19791565d7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210 --- Comment #5 from Shaohua Li --- Thanks for all your comments!

[Bug c/111210] Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-4849-gf19791565d7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Monakov --- The testcase is small enough to notice the issue by inspection. Note that you get the "expected" answer with -fno-strict-aliasing, and as explained in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ it is one of the things y

[Bug target/111166] gcc unnecessarily creates vector operations for packing 32 bit integers into struct (x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||guojiufu at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/111166] gcc unnecessarily creates vector operations for packing 32 bit integers into struct (x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66 --- Comment #5 from gnu_bugzilla_gcc at catelyn dot tech --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > note the situation is difficult to rectify - ideally the vectorizer > would see that we require two 64bit register pieces but it doesn't -

[Bug c/111210] Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-4849-gf19791565d7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug libstdc++/104167] Implement C++20 std::chrono::utc_clock, std::chrono::tzdb etc.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104167 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/111210] Wrong code at -Os on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-4849-gf19791565d7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111210 --- Comment #2 from Shaohua Li --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #1) > 'c' is called with 'd' pointing to 'long e[2]', so > > return *(int *)(d + 1); > > is an aliasing violation (dereferencing a pointer to an incompatible type

[Bug target/111166] gcc unnecessarily creates vector operations for packing 32 bit integers into struct (x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||101926 --- Comment #4 from Richard Bie

[Bug ipa/111157] [14 Regression] 416.gamess fails with a run-time abort when compiled with -O2 -flto after r14-3226-gd073e2d75d9ed4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57 --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #4) > So here ipa-modref declares the field dead, while ipa-prop determines its > value even if it is unused and makes it used later? This is what I wanted to ask about

[Bug ipa/111157] [14 Regression] 416.gamess fails with a run-time abort when compiled with -O2 -flto after r14-3226-gd073e2d75d9ed4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > I think if IPA modref declares the argument dead at the call site then IPA > CP/SRA cannot declare it known constant. It is declared "killed" by the function.

[Bug target/111166] gcc unnecessarily creates vector operations for packing 32 bit integers into struct (x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66 --- Comment #3 from gnu_bugzilla_gcc at catelyn dot tech --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Unless you can come up with an actual benchmark showing the vector code is > slower I'd say it's not. Given it's smaller it should win on

[Bug target/111166] gcc unnecessarily creates vector operations for packing 32 bit integers into struct (x86_64)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66 --- Comment #2 from gnu_bugzilla_gcc at catelyn dot tech --- Created attachment 55807 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55807&action=edit preprocessed file containing the benchmark code I used I compiled this code (although us

[Bug analyzer/111213] New: -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds false negative with `return arr[9];`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111213 Bug ID: 111213 Summary: -Wanalyzer-out-of-bounds false negative with `return arr[9];` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/100932] autoconf error: possibly undefined macro: GCC_AC_ENABLE_DECIMAL_FLOAT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100932 Nicolas Boulenguez changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/111211] No warning for iterator going out of scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211 --- Comment #3 from Lehua Ding --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > We diagnose this after unrolling, so the difference is whether we unroll or > not. But based on the assembly code it looks like both are unrolled. foo: n

[Bug c/111211] No warning for iterator going out of scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111211 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- We diagnose this after unrolling, so the difference is whether we unroll or not.

[Bug target/111212] [13/14 Regression] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.3 Summary|internal compi

[Bug target/111212] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111212 --- Comment #1 from Mathieu Malaterre --- Compilation line: % /usr/bin/c++ -freport-bug -DHWY_STATIC_DEFINE -DTOOLCHAIN_MISS_ASM_HWCAP_H -I/home/malat/highway -maltivec -mcpu=power8 -O2 -g -DNDEBUG -fPIE -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inline

  1   2   >