[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 gyumin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug target/111600] [14 Regression] RISC-V bootstrap time regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600 --- Comment #15 from Richard Biener --- I think despite looking at the total size of the files it would be nice to see if some of the large functions take a lot of compile-time (and where) and see whether some more intelligent code emission help

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 gyumin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug middle-end/64928] [11 Regression] Inordinate cpu time and memory usage in "phase opt and generate" with -ftest-coverage -fprofile-arcs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64928 --- Comment #46 from Richard Biener --- It'll get closed when we close the GCC 11 branch, there's still the opportunity for somebody to bisect what fixed it in GCC 12 in case it was something trivial.

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- That being said 0x8F3700142F89C2A5 is a positive # so it will be unsigned as it does not fit in a 64bit signed integer.

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 gyumin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug ipa/111672] Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > Add -save-temps and attach the resulting .i (or .ii) file. This is documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ under the section of `What we need `.

[Bug ipa/111672] Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Add -save-temps and attach the resulting .i (or .ii) file.

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note C99 has the same table: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1256.pdf C++11 has the same table too: https://timsong-cpp.github.io/cppwp/n3337/lex.icon

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/111689] Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|translation |c --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --

[Bug translation/111689] New: Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111689 Bug ID: 111689 Summary: Unexpected comparison result of signed long long literal with zero Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/111688] New: [14 regression] bootstrap failure after r14-4383-g14d0c509898b03

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111688 Bug ID: 111688 Summary: [14 regression] bootstrap failure after r14-4383-g14d0c509898b03 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ipa/111672] Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 --- Comment #4 from Hanke Zhang --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Oh I see the compiler you are testing with defaults with fortify turned on. > That is the difference. > Maybe also with pie turned on by default tlalso. > > Can y

[Bug ipa/111672] Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Oh I see the compiler you are testing with defaults with fortify turned on. That is the difference. Maybe also with pie turned on by default tlalso. Can you provide the full output of gcc -v and also the pr

[Bug ipa/111672] Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 --- Comment #2 from Hanke Zhang --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I cannot reproduce this on the trunk (or even in 12.3.0): > > Split point at BB 3 > header time: 1393.311190 header size: 33 > split time: 2.226400 split size

[Bug middle-end/111669] bogus -Wnonnull in conditionally executed code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > The warning given for the reduced test case is correct because it does not > make sense. It should be just rewritten as I mean, the code does not make sense. And the

[Bug middle-end/111669] bogus -Wnonnull in conditionally executed code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111669 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7 fr

[Bug c/82967] "did you mean" suggestions are way too suggestive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82967 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug debug/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to King Lok Chung from comment #8) > It also looks like to me that the compiler is trying to be smart and save > one register use by reusing the SP, resulting in two SP offsets. In reality, > it co

[Bug debug/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #8 from King Lok Chung --- It also looks like to me that the compiler is trying to be smart and save one register use by reusing the SP, resulting in two SP offsets. In reality, it could have used a6 or a7 easily. Or might be the SP

[Bug c++/111681] better error message for unknown type in catch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111681 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|Missing fixit fo

[Bug tree-optimization/111389] [14 Regression] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111389 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/111678] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/111677] arm64 build fails unrecognizable insn [REGRESSION]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/111683] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Incorrect answer when using SSE2 intrinsics with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Known to fail|

[Bug debug/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Note I think most other targets create the stack offset in a register and then do the add to the sp rather than having 2 add to sp which might be the reason why this has not been seen until now too ...

[Bug target/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-10-03 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- https://sourceware.org/binutils/docs/as/CFI-directives.html#g_t_002ecfi_005fdef_005fcfa_005foffset-offset I think you are reading the dwarf standard incorrectly. It is the second cfi_def_cfa_offset is abso

[Bug target/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- MIPS64 does: ``` daddiu $sp,$sp,-2080 .cfi_def_cfa_offset 2080 daddu $2,$7,$6 sd $16,2056($sp) sd $17,2064($sp) sb $0,0($2) li $

[Bug target/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 56044 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56044&action=edit Preprocessed source

[Bug target/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 56043 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56043&action=edit testcase `-g0 -O3 -Wall -Wno-unused-label -fno-reorder-blocks -march=rv64imafd`

[Bug target/111680] DWARF information inconsistent with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||riscv64-linux-gnu Component|de

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/d9375e490072d1aae73a93949aa158fcd2a27018/libstdc%2B%2B-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h#L1814 is exactly where a temp copy is created. Is that valid for std::sort, I am pret

[Bug libstdc++/111687] libstdc++ fails to work for clang 18 any more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- https://www.mail-archive.com/cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org/msg361472.html is the patch which broke clang. Report it to them.

[Bug libstdc++/111687] libstdc++ fails to work for clang 18 any more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WONTFIX |INVALID

[Bug libstdc++/111687] libstdc++ fails to work for clang 18 any more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/111687] New: libstdc++ fails to work for clang 18 any more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111687 Bug ID: 111687 Summary: libstdc++ fails to work for clang 18 any more Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: li

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- With -fsanitize=address we get this at runtime: ``` = ==1==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: stack-buffer-overflow on address 0x7fc69190003c at pc 0x000

[Bug c/111684] enhancement: gcc doesn't warn about pointless tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- I've had a quick look at the linux-6.6-rc4 kernel code and found about a dozen examples of this problem, so there would be some customers for a solution.

[Bug other/111686] New: [13 regression] excess errors in 23_containers/vector/bool/allocator/copy.cc after r13-7931-ge6d26b141bf03a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111686 Bug ID: 111686 Summary: [13 regression] excess errors in 23_containers/vector/bool/allocator/copy.cc after r13-7931-ge6d26b141bf03a Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 Kyle Knoepfel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 --- Comment #3 from Kyle Knoepfel --- @Andrew Pinski, yes I surmised as much. My difficulty, though, is in understanding if this is the correct behavior according to the standard's specification of std::sort, which presumably is reasonably summ

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/111685] Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- IIRC this happens if the cmp is defined incorrectly.

[Bug c++/111685] New: Segfault while sorting on array element address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111685 Bug ID: 111685 Summary: Segfault while sorting on array element address Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c/111684] enhancement: gcc doesn't warn about pointless tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Blocks|

[Bug c/111684] enhancement: gcc doesn't warn about pointless tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|enhancement: gcc doesn't|enhancement: gcc doesn't

[Bug fortran/111674] [13/14 regression] Failure to finalize an allocatable subobject of a non-finalizable type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/111684] New: enhancement: gcc doesn't detect pointless tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111684 Bug ID: 111684 Summary: enhancement: gcc doesn't detect pointless tests Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c++/111683] New: Incorrect answer when using SSE2 intrinsics with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111683 Bug ID: 111683 Summary: Incorrect answer when using SSE2 intrinsics with -O3 Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug ipa/108007] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above with "-fno-dce -fno-tree-dce" on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug ipa/108007] [11/12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above with "-fno-dce -fno-tree-dce" on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108007 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1be18ea110a2d69570dbc494588a7c73173883be commit r14-4382-g1be18ea110a2d69570dbc494588a7c73173883be Author: Martin Jambor Date:

[Bug ipa/110378] IPA-SRA for destructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110378 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14d0c509898b0361f78284c05556035edde6d1e0 commit r14-4383-g14d0c509898b0361f78284c05556035edde6d1e0 Author: Martin Jambor Date: T

[Bug c++/111682] New: valgrind error in tsubst_template_decl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111682 Bug ID: 111682 Summary: valgrind error in tsubst_template_decl Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug ipa/111672] Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I cannot reproduce this on the trunk (or even in 12.3.0): Split point at BB 3 header time: 1393.311190 header size: 33 split time: 2.226400 split size: 2 bbs: 3 SSA names to pass: Refused: split s

[Bug c++/111681] New: Missing fixit for exception name in catch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111681 Bug ID: 111681 Summary: Missing fixit for exception name in catch Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug debug/111680] New: DWARF information inconstant with the generated RISC-V Binary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111680 Bug ID: 111680 Summary: DWARF information inconstant with the generated RISC-V Binary Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/111679] `(~a) | (a ^ b)` is not simplified to `~(a & b)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111679 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-10-03 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/111679] New: `(~a) | (a ^ b)` is not simplified to `~(a & b)`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111679 Bug ID: 111679 Summary: `(~a) | (a ^ b)` is not simplified to `~(a & b)` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhanceme

[Bug libstdc++/108178] Filesystem::copy_file can't copy from /proc on Linux machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f85947338197b12b77aa5eb0eb2d1b4ea7dbdd54 commit r12-9908-gf85947338197b12b77aa5eb0eb2d1b4ea7dbdd54 Author: Jonathan Wake

[Bug target/111600] [14 Regression] RISC-V bootstrap time regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111600 --- Comment #14 from Kito Cheng --- Some info for generated files: - File blankcomment code

[Bug c/111678] ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678 --- Comment #1 from CTC <19373742 at buaa dot edu.cn> --- Created attachment 56040 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56040&action=edit The compiler output

[Bug c/111678] New: ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111678 Bug ID: 111678 Summary: ICE in check_loop_closed_ssa_def, at tree-ssa-loop-manip.cc:647 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/111677] New: arm64 build fails unrecognizable insn [REGRESSION]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111677 Bug ID: 111677 Summary: arm64 build fails unrecognizable insn [REGRESSION] Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/111235] [Armv7-a]: Control-dependency between atomic accesses removed by -O1.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111235 --- Comment #4 from Luke Geeson --- Hi there, Apologies here you go: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/65106

[Bug libstdc++/111589] Use relaxed atomic increment (but not decrement!) in shared_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111589 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > > src/c++98/ios_init.cc: __gnu_cxx::__atomic_add_dispatch(&_S_refcount, 1); > > I think there's a race here, independent of the ordering used for this > in

[Bug sanitizer/111620] [RISC-V]fsanitize is not working with c++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111620 --- Comment #2 from Akhilesh Kumar --- with 110036 (CHECK failed) issue is fixed, but Even after patch ASAN unable to detect corruption like "Use_after_free(heap)","Heap buffer overflow","Stack buffer overflow" and "Use after scope" some feat

[Bug tree-optimization/111648] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2/3 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r14-3243-ga7dba4a1c05

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648 --- Comment #4 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to prathamesh3492 from comment #3) > Created attachment 56037 [details] > Untested fix > > The issue is that when a1 is a multiple of vector length, we end up creating > followi

[Bug tree-optimization/111648] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2/3 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r14-3243-ga7dba4a1c05

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111648 --- Comment #3 from prathamesh3492 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 56037 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56037&action=edit Untested fix The issue is that when a1 is a multiple of vector length, we end up creating f

[Bug libstdc++/111676] New: Race condition in std::ios::Init

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111676 Bug ID: 111676 Summary: Race condition in std::ios::Init Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++

[Bug modula2/111675] Incorrect parameter value passed when attempting to pass a field of a packed record as a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111675 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-10-03 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug modula2/111675] New: Incorrect parameter value passed when attempting to pass a field of a packed record as a parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111675 Bug ID: 111675 Summary: Incorrect parameter value passed when attempting to pass a field of a packed record as a parameter Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/111674] [13/14 regression] Failure to finalize an allocatable subobject of a non-finalizable type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/111674] New: [13/14 regression] Failure to finalize an allocatable subobject of a non-finalizable type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111674 Bug ID: 111674 Summary: [13/14 regression] Failure to finalize an allocatable subobject of a non-finalizable type Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/111673] New: assign_hard_reg() routine should scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with basic block frequency

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111673 Bug ID: 111673 Summary: assign_hard_reg() routine should scale save/restore costs of callee save registers with basic block frequency Product: gcc Version: unkno

[Bug c/111672] New: Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111672 Bug ID: 111672 Summary: Inappropriate function splitting during pass_split_functions Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/111050] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ABI break in _Hash_node_value_base since GCC 11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111050 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/111668] [12/13/14 Regression] vrp2 (match and simplify) introduces invalid wide signed Boolean values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/111668] [12/13/14 Regression] vrp2 (match and simplify) introduces invalid wide signed Boolean values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, for the a ? -1 : 0 case (and similarly for a ? 0 : -1) we have 3 distinct cases. One is signed 1-bit precision type, for which we jump through the unnecessary hops of trying to optimize e.g. the first on

[Bug target/111566] RISC-V Vector Fortran: ICE in final_scan_insn_1 (final RTL pass)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111566 Jeremy Bennett changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/111548] RISC-V Vector: ICE in validate_change_or_fail (vsetvl pass)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111548 Jeremy Bennett changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/111671] New: ICE in get_default_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.cc:312

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111671 Bug ID: 111671 Summary: ICE in get_default_value, at tree-ssa-ccp.cc:312 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: