[Bug libstdc++/119962] New: : __maybe_present_t misses initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119962 Bug ID: 119962 Summary: : __maybe_present_t misses initialization Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstd

[Bug tree-optimization/117385] Move phiopt away from doing a COND_EXPR with a comparison as first operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117385 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 61213 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61213&action=edit In progress patch

[Bug tree-optimization/117385] Move phiopt away from doing a COND_EXPR with a comparison as first operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117385 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > Created attachment 61213 [details] > In progress patch bool-checks-1.c is the testcase that fails.

[Bug tree-optimization/117385] Move phiopt away from doing a COND_EXPR with a comparison as first operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117385 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||48 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinsk

[Bug c++/119916] [15/16 Regression] folly (2025.04.14.00 and earlier): coroutine tests fail with GCC 15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119916 --- Comment #8 from mcccs at gmx dot com --- bisect bad commit: r15-3153-g68ee624bc52ba1 reduce is running, we can't know if the fault is in a commit or in the source for now

[Bug tree-optimization/119959] [15/16 regression] simple loop miscompiled into an endless loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119959 mcccs at gmx dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcccs at gmx dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/116600] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] shrink wrapping vs asm goto, ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2584 since r7-5127-g827ab47ab1f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600 --- Comment #9 from chenglulu --- I found that there are two edges, 6->13 and 12->13, as shown in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61211. When shrink-wrap optimizes 6->13, it finds that bb12 fall-through bb13. So it needs to split

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 --- Comment #10 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > > No this is the same problem as PR 116600. Just the ICE shows up. > > What is happening is shrink wrapping is moving

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > No this is the same problem as PR 116600. Just the ICE shows up. What is happening is shrink wrapping is moving the restore to the edge of the basic block conta

[Bug middle-end/112877] TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is not honored consistently, should maybe not apply to builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112877 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a670ebde3995481225ec62b29686ec07a21e5c10 commit r16-170-ga670ebde3995481225ec62b29686ec07a21e5c10 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Nov 21 07:

[Bug middle-end/112877] TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is not honored consistently, should maybe not apply to builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112877 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cdb239bd213524a43b38ad8fca8e7ed0b5fb41eb commit r16-171-gcdb239bd213524a43b38ad8fca8e7ed0b5fb41eb Author: H.J. Lu Date: Sun Nov 10 11:

[Bug fortran/119948] Source allocation of pure function result rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-27 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/116600] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] shrink wrapping vs asm goto, ICE: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2584 since r7-5127-g827ab47ab1f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 119961 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to chenglulu from comment #6) > # gcc/cc1 -quiet test.c -O2 -std=gnu11 -o test.s > -Wno-incompatible-pointer-types -fno-jump-tables > -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables > > The problem of bug 11660

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 --- Comment #2 from chenglulu --- Created attachment 61212 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61212&action=edit test-pro_and_epilogue.png

[Bug middle-end/112877] TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is not honored consistently, should maybe not apply to builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112877 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f962f594e9006651379dafc9ef039be9654e6291 commit r16-174-gf962f594e9006651379dafc9ef039be9654e6291 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Sun Nov 10 17:

[Bug middle-end/118288] Using new crc builtins on i386 leads to ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118288 --- Comment #13 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a670ebde3995481225ec62b29686ec07a21e5c10 commit r16-170-ga670ebde3995481225ec62b29686ec07a21e5c10 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Nov 21 07

[Bug middle-end/112877] TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is not honored consistently, should maybe not apply to builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112877 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de8648def762e3b54200dd3cd5c6fb480b228579 commit r16-173-gde8648def762e3b54200dd3cd5c6fb480b228579 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Sun Nov 10 16:

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug middle-end/112877] TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is not honored consistently, should maybe not apply to builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112877 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9f81d5017adc5d860b24f67aeb89b4e79c7ebdb commit r16-172-gf9f81d5017adc5d860b24f67aeb89b4e79c7ebdb Author: H.J. Lu Date: Sun Nov 10 16:

[Bug c/48274] C frontend emit invalid promotions (TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES )

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48274 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a670ebde3995481225ec62b29686ec07a21e5c10 commit r16-170-ga670ebde3995481225ec62b29686ec07a21e5c10 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Nov 21 07:5

[Bug middle-end/112877] TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES is not honored consistently, should maybe not apply to builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112877 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:78db4753c9646a372512e6a951fced12f74de0bc commit r16-169-g78db4753c9646a372512e6a951fced12f74de0bc Author: H.J. Lu Date: Thu Nov 21 08:

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 chenglulu changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug target/116600] [12/13/14/15/16 Regression] internal compiler error: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2584 since r7-5127-g827ab47ab1f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116600 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chenglulu at loongson dot cn --- Commen

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target||aarch64 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pins

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] New: Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 Bug ID: 119961 Summary: Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/119960] [15/16 Regression] vectorizer seems not to do as much any more since r15-5863

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|1 |0 Status|WAITING

[Bug rtl-optimization/119961] Control flow errors caused by shrink wrap optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119961 --- Comment #1 from chenglulu --- Created attachment 61211 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61211&action=edit test-ree.png

[Bug tree-optimization/119960] [15/16 Regression] vectorizer seems not to do as much any more since r15-5863

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960 --- Comment #3 from Arseny Kapoulkine --- Created attachment 61209 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61209&action=edit preprocessed source

[Bug tree-optimization/119960] [15/16 Regression] vectorizer seems not to do as much any more since r15-5863

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-reduction, |

[Bug target/119937] [15/16 Regression] ICE: Error detected at a-sttebu.ads:56:30

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119937 --- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose --- and both builds use the 64bit time_t changes, which are still in review.

[Bug target/119937] [15/16 Regression] ICE: Error detected at a-sttebu.ads:56:30

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119937 --- Comment #7 from Matthias Klose --- the same build / configuration succeeds to build on Ubuntu (Ubuntu has all the hardening flags turned on by default, Debian keeps them off by default).

[Bug tree-optimization/119960] [15/16 Regression] vectorizer seems not to do as much any more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Target|

[Bug tree-optimization/119960] Regression of code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960 --- Comment #1 from Arseny Kapoulkine --- Here's what I think is happening: - The C code hot path is, on every iteration, reading a pair of integers from `edgefifo`, decoding a triangle and writing two new pairs of integers to `edgefifo`. It's

[Bug target/119549] [14 Regression] SSE4 code inlined into no-sse4 function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119549 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d85444a3b00c9a6fce56459af5ec081439a9aaa0 commit r16-164-gd85444a3b00c9a6fce56459af5ec081439a9aaa0 Author: liuhongt Date: Tue Apr 1

[Bug tree-optimization/119960] New: Regression of code generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119960 Bug ID: 119960 Summary: Regression of code generation Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #11 from Steffen Nurpmeso --- I had reverted to 14.2.0. Alejandro, the NUL is not "embedded", it "terminates". *OR* at least this is what i am used to; for me this is a string literal. Also to uecker who moves the camel through the

[Bug middle-end/109267] generates empty functions with .cfi_startproc/.cfi_endproc that conflict with other functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- Patch submitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-April/681924.html

[Bug tree-optimization/119959] [15/16 regression] simple loop miscompiled into an endless loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119959 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Host|x86_64-linux-gnu| Component|c

[Bug target/105275] [12/13/14/15/16 regression] 525.x264_r and 538.imagick_r regressed on x86_64 at -O2 with PGO after r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jan Hubicka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1d635e79b3c2d26f864964b79717132bffbcad20 commit r16-162-g1d635e79b3c2d26f864964b79717132bffbcad20 Author: Jan Hubicka Date: Sat Ap

[Bug c/119959] [15 regression] simple loop miscompiled into an endless loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119959 --- Comment #2 from Bruno Haible --- Created attachment 61207 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61207&action=edit foo.c compiled by gcc 15.1

[Bug c/119959] [15 regression] simple loop miscompiled into an endless loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119959 --- Comment #1 from Bruno Haible --- Created attachment 61206 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61206&action=edit foo.c compiled by gcc 14.2

[Bug c/119959] New: [15 regression] simple loop miscompiled into an endless loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119959 Bug ID: 119959 Summary: [15 regression] simple loop miscompiled into an endless loop Product: gcc Version: 15.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/119432] gimple front-end and round trip for fails for __builtin_stdc_rotate_left

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119432 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #12 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- You are mistaken. Why not just try? https://godbolt.org/z/sEcxvMjG6

[Bug ipa/113203] __attribute__ ((always_inline)) fails with C99/LTO/-Og.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113203 --- Comment #8 from Stefan Krah --- As Richard wrote, C99 demands that an additional out-of-line copy of the function is generated. Whether the non-standard __attribute__ ((always_inline)) should override C99 is of course another question. For

[Bug ipa/103734] IPA-CP opportunity for imagick in SPECCPU 2017

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103734 --- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka --- This is MorphologyApply MagickExport Image *MorphologyApply(const Image *image, const ChannelType channel,const MorphologyMethod method, const ssize_t iterations, const KernelInfo *kernel, const Com

[Bug ipa/103734] IPA-CP opportunity for imagick in SPECCPU 2017

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103734 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- With -fprofile-use we get Evaluating opportunities for MorphologyApply/3266. - considering value 134217719 for param #1 const ChannelType (caller_count: 3) good_cloning_opportunity_p (time: 1, size: 427

[Bug c++/119916] [15/16 Regression] folly (2025.04.14.00 and earlier): coroutine tests fail with GCC 15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119916 mcccs at gmx dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61203|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/119958] TLS relaxation does not allow addq with GOTTPOFF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- Though, I guess testing address of __thread weak for non-NULL or NULL makes no sense. Address of it will be never NULL even when it is not defined. Which is because the instructions compute the thread segmen

[Bug target/119958] TLS relaxation does not allow addq with GOTTPOFF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Though, I guess testing address of __thread weak for non-NULL or NULL makes > no sense. > Address of it will be never NULL even when it is not defined. > Which i

[Bug target/105275] [12/13/14/15/16 regression] 525.x264_r and 538.imagick_r regressed on x86_64 at -O2 with PGO after r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- The only vectorization difference is: +imagick_r.ltrans8.ltrans.189t.slp1:magick/distort.c:1911:18: optimized: basic block part vectorized using 16 byte vectors +imagick_r.ltrans8.ltrans.189t.slp1:magick/dist

[Bug target/119958] TLS relaxation does not allow addq with GOTTPOFF

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||3.4.6 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug target/119958] UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-26 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug target/119958] UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- This is in tls.pdf documented 0x00 movq %fs:0,%rax 0x09 addq x@gottpoff(%rip),%rax R_X86_64_GOTTPOFF x ⇓⇓⇓ 0x00 movq %fs:0,%rax 0x09 leaq x@tpoff(%rax),%rax R_X86_64_TPOFF32 x IE->LE relaxation, which is bas

[Bug target/119958] UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|MOVED |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug sanitizer/119958] UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > This is not a GCC bug but rather a binutils one, please report to it to them. > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ > > The linker/assembler is doing relaxation

[Bug sanitizer/119958] UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug sanitizer/119958] UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code See Also|

[Bug sanitizer/119958] New: UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119958 Bug ID: 119958 Summary: UBSAN: Replacing add with lea leads to false positive Product: gcc Version: 15.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug c++/119957] vtable-verify.cc has poor test coverage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119957 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/119957] New: vtable-verify.cc has poor test coverage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119957 Bug ID: 119957 Summary: vtable-verify.cc has poor test coverage Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug lto/119956] New: lockfile / lto-ltrans-cache have poor testing coverage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119956 Bug ID: 119956 Summary: lockfile / lto-ltrans-cache have poor testing coverage Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug ipa/119955] New: ipa-locality-cloning.cc has poor test coverage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119955 Bug ID: 119955 Summary: ipa-locality-cloning.cc has poor test coverage Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: i

[Bug c++/119916] [15/16 Regression] folly (2025.04.14.00 and earlier): coroutine tests fail with GCC 15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119916 --- Comment #6 from mcccs at gmx dot com --- Created attachment 61203 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61203&action=edit preprocessed.cpp.xz The preprocessed source

[Bug translation/89936] wrong punctuation in tree-profile.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89936 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.0

[Bug tree-optimization/112307] Segmentation fault with -O1 -fcode-hoisting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112307 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-reduction | Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/119948] Source allocation of pure function result rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119948 --- Comment #3 from kargls at comcast dot net --- Created attachment 61202 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61202&action=edit fix the issues The attached patch has passed regression testing on x86_64-*-freebsd. * pri

[Bug c++/119916] [15/16 Regression] folly (2025.04.14.00 and earlier): coroutine tests fail with GCC 15

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119916 mcccs at gmx dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mcccs at gmx dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/112307] Segmentation fault with -O1 -fcode-hoisting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112307 --- Comment #23 from mcccs at gmx dot com --- Yes that's what I think! Thanks

[Bug tree-optimization/112307] Segmentation fault with -O1 -fcode-hoisting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112307 --- Comment #22 from Jonathan Wakely --- I don't think there any point reducing this, I can see what the code does and it's invalid. Adding a non-trivial copy constructor fixes it.

[Bug target/105275] [12/13/14/15/16 regression] 525.x264_r and 538.imagick_r regressed on x86_64 at -O2 with PGO after r12-7319-g90d693bdc9d718

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105275 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/116865] [14/15/16 Regression] ICE when compiling GNU coreutils numfmt with -fanalyzer since r14-9527-g1579394c9ecf3d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116865 Bruno Haible changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bruno at clisp dot org --- Comment #6 fr

[Bug target/118280] [14/15/16 Regression] __atomic_test_and_set in Microblaze are broken (exposed by r14-4286)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118280 --- Comment #17 from Michael Eager --- The reproducer script builds gcc-13, not v14 or v15. There have been no changes to microblaze support in gcc-15.

[Bug target/119937] [15/16 Regression] ICE: Error detected at a-sttebu.ads:56:30

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119937 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6 fr

[Bug middle-end/119954] New: "a < b < c < d < ..." taking long time to process to generate error message

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119954 Bug ID: 119954 Summary: "a < b < c < d < ..." taking long time to process to generate error message Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug c++/119953] New: Compiling libstdc++ on MSP430 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119953 Bug ID: 119953 Summary: Compiling libstdc++ on MSP430 fails Product: gcc Version: 15.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/109267] generates empty functions with .cfi_startproc/.cfi_endproc that conflict with other functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||invisparent at outlook dot com --- Comm

[Bug middle-end/119951] Exception and std::stoi behaves abnormally in a rare occasion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119951 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug middle-end/109267] generates empty functions with .cfi_startproc/.cfi_endproc that conflict with other functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 61200 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61200&action=edit Patch which will need testcases for this patch should fix it. It replaces __builtin_unreachable to __builtin_t

[Bug analyzer/119952] New: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive with [[gnu::malloc(destructor)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119952 Bug ID: 119952 Summary: -Wanalyzer-malloc-leak false positive with [[gnu::malloc(destructor)]] Product: gcc Version: 15.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c/119950] __builtin_constant_p warning with -Wdeprecated-non-prototype inconsistent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119950 --- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer --- Patch posted: [PATCH] c: Suppress -Wdeprecated-non-prototype warnings for builtins

[Bug middle-end/109267] generates empty functions with .cfi_startproc/.cfi_endproc that conflict with other functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109267 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||EH, link-failure, |

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #9 from Harald van Dijk --- (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #8) > (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #7) > > The warning is called -Wunterminated-string-initialization, but there is no > > unterminated string. That

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #10 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #9) > If you want to make the argument that there is no unterminated string > because there is no string in the first place, then the logical conclusion > is st

[Bug c/119950] __builtin_constant_p warning with -Wdeprecated-non-prototype inconsistent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119950 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c++/119951] Exception and std::stoi behaves abnormally in a rare occasion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119951 --- Comment #1 from Chenyi Wang --- Update: "-fexceptions" is always passed to gcc.

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 --- Comment #8 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #7) > (In reply to uecker from comment #6) > > The warning is about truncation of the final NUL > > character in the string literal. So I think the warning is co

[Bug c++/119951] New: Exception and std::stoi behaves abnormally in a rare occasion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119951 Bug ID: 119951 Summary: Exception and std::stoi behaves abnormally in a rare occasion Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/116082] -Wunterminated-string-initialization should not warn about strings that end with "\0" but should warn still for -Wc++-compat

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116082 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #445 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #444) > > Sorry for the lack of clarification, I used devel/sh-lra from > https://gcc.gnu.org/git. I pulled the main repo, switched to devel/sh-lra, > create

[Bug tree-optimization/112307] Segmentation fault with -O1 -fcode-hoisting

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112307 --- Comment #21 from mcccs at gmx dot com --- Sorry again, there's a function of int type that didn't return anything but the compiler didn't catch it so the reduction script allowed it. My last reduction is also invalid.

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #444 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #443) > Thanks for your efforts and reporting the results. Although I'm not sure > which branch exactly you have used for this test... Sorry for the lack of

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #443 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #442) > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #441) > > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #440) > > > The branch for GCC 16 ha

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #442 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #441) > (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #440) > > The branch for GCC 16 has opened now, so I assume it would be a good tim

[Bug tree-optimization/119924] [16 Regression] ICE when building 531.deepsjeng_r during ipa-cp since r16-101-g132d01d96ea9d6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119924 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/119950] New: __builtin_constant_p warning with -Wdeprecated-non-prototype inconsistent

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119950 Bug ID: 119950 Summary: __builtin_constant_p warning with -Wdeprecated-non-prototype inconsistent Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norm

[Bug fortran/119928] [15/16 Regression] Bogus "Interface mismatch" in gfortran.dg/proc_ptr_52.f90 with -Wall

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119928 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-04-26 Assignee|unassigne

  1   2   >