[Bug ipa/120987] [13/14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r12-5541-g2cadaa1f134bec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 --- Comment #21 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #20) > Seems to be fixed by: > ... > diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref.c b/gcc/ipa-modref.c > index 9e537b04196..fbdf8da36df 100644 > --- a/gcc/ipa-modref.c > +++ b/gcc/ipa-m

[Bug gcov-profile/121045] [16 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr58552.C caused by r16-2196-g52d9c2272f6366

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121045 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- You're sure it's not the other commit that rewrites discriminator handling?

[Bug gcov-profile/121045] New: [16 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr58552.C caused by r16-2196-g52d9c2272f6366

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121045 Bug ID: 121045 Summary: [16 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr58552.C caused by r16-2196-g52d9c2272f6366 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug tree-optimization/102676] Failure to optimize out malloc/nothrow allocation that's only used for bool checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102676 Kang-Che Sung changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Explorer09 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/120866] [16 Regression] pdp11-aout, powerpc-ibm-aix7.1 and powerpc-ibm-aix7.2 crosscompilers fail to build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120866 Sangamesh changed: What|Removed |Added CC||swamy.sangamesh at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #17) > Then if you look at the newer bug > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=78473, that is on an > experimental branch which adds a new form of GC (not merge

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski --- For emacs the easiest work around is add: __attribute__((noipa)) static void workaround_sink (void *) {} and then inside kbd_buffer_store_event_hold add: workaround_sink(event); right before the call of k

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #18 from Sam James --- (In reply to pipcet from comment #16) > I'm not sure it's really a duplicate of this one I wouldn't worry too much about if it's marked as a dupe or not. Whoever fixes this bug will likely add a testcase from

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #17 from Sam James --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #15) > The odd thing is this has been an issue for the last 5 years now, did Emacs > code change recently to expose this issue? I think it is a combination of: * the str

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #16 from pipcet at protonmail dot com --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #14) > (In reply to Sam James from comment #13) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > > > Also it is not obvious from the Emacs bug report it i

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski --- The odd thing is this has been an issue for the last 5 years now, did Emacs code change recently to expose this issue?

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #14 from Sam James --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #13) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > > Also it is not obvious from the Emacs bug report it is exactly this bug. It > > could be another bug that is exposed b

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > Also it is not obvious from the Emacs bug report it is exactly this bug. It > could be another bug that is exposed by SRA https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #10) > This GCC bug caused Emacs to crash in mysterious ways; see > . > > We worked around the bug by changing Emacs 'configure' and 'make'

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Paul Eggert from comment #10) > This GCC bug caused Emacs to crash in mysterious ways; see > . > > We worked around the bug by changing Emacs 'configure' and 'make'

[Bug tree-optimization/117423] [13/14/15/16 Regression] union not written to with particular layout since r10-6321-g636e80eea24b78

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117423 Paul Eggert changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eggert at cs dot ucla.edu --- Comment #10

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds with GCC 14 and vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Created attachment 61847 [details] > Happens on x86_64 with this version too Note this version also removes the struct but as I mentioned we need to keep around

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds with GCC 14 and vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14 Regression] False |[14 Regression] False

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61846|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jan Palus from comment #2) > Some weird observations from reproducer minimazation: > - memcpy() needs to be there otherwise it's not reproduced (although it's > completely unrelated?) Without t

[Bug bootstrap/121038] autoprofiledbootstrap is broken in few ways

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121038 --- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen --- 1) If you don't get data loss (perf should complain) the -m change should be fine. Alternatively increase /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_mlock_kb 5) IIRC the --all was a workaround for something, but I can't reme

[Bug cobol/119331] cobol: unimplemented exceptions abort compilation - even if requested to NOT use them

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119331 --- Comment #5 from James K. Lowden --- Yes. One way to look at is to pretend there is no command-line option regarding ECs. The CDF behaves as required; it is up to the COBOL text to use it. :-) Under consideration: A CDF-directive comman

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 --- Comment #2 from Jan Palus --- Some weird observations from reproducer minimazation: - memcpy() needs to be there otherwise it's not reproduced (although it's completely unrelated?) - memcpy() needs to copy into array which is struct's member

[Bug target/121044] [14 Regression] False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection Summary|Fals

[Bug middle-end/112684] ICE: in main, at toplev.cc:2327 with -ftarget-help -fdiagnostics-generate-patch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112684 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug cobol/120772] gcobc requires explicit -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120772 James K. Lowden changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/121044] New: False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121044 Bug ID: 121044 Summary: False positive -Warray-bounds iwith GCC 14 and NEON intrinsics Product: gcc Version: 14.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug cobol/119636] compile error: gcobol1 does not find file descriptions in case of obsolete FD phrases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119636 --- Comment #7 from James K. Lowden --- To be clear, ISO is unambiguous. 13.4.5.3 Syntax rules ALL FORMATS 1) File-name-1 shall be specified in a file control entry. With that requirement, tbug.cbl:5:11: error: file name not found is prett

[Bug testsuite/120591] SARIF tests depend on (length of) directory name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120591 --- Comment #2 from Georg-Johann Lay --- One difference is that in my case (for avr) these tests were failing. hmmm, I tried to reproduce it with same source and same options for configure, build and testsuite, but with different length of buil

[Bug cobol/119636] compile error: gcobol1 does not find file descriptions in case of obsolete FD phrases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119636 James K. Lowden changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #6 from James K.

[Bug fortran/121043] [15/16 Regression] Tests of OpenCoarray fail to pass, works on 14.3.1 20250701

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection, |

[Bug fortran/121043] [15/16 Regression] Tests of OpenCoarray fail to pass, works on 14.3.1 20250701

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug fortran/121043] New: [15/16 Regression] Tests of OpenCoarray fail to pass, works on 14.3.1 20250701

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121043 Bug ID: 121043 Summary: [15/16 Regression] Tests of OpenCoarray fail to pass, works on 14.3.1 20250701 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/104620] FAIL: g++.dg/cpp23/consteval-if2.C -std=gnu++20 (test for errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104620 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/49372] Temporaries evaluated for arguments of a default constructors of array elements not destructed properly (?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49372 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug modula2/120253] Error message column numbers should start at 1 not 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120253 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-15 branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6bb28ea300a1e2c1e9852a7208d987d93135705 commit r15-9959-ge6bb28ea300a1e2c1e9852a7208d987d93135705 Author: Gaius Mulley Da

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #40 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #34) > Anyway, will defer this to Jason, the change to only do what() printing if > derived from std::exception was fairly small and can be always reverted if > there

[Bug libstdc++/115209] The implementation of concat_view refers to p2542r7 rather than the p2542r8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115209 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #7) > (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #6) > > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #5) > > > (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #4) > > > > > Our concat_view implementation is a

[Bug target/121007] [15/16 Regression] compiler hangs when building ffpmeg with -mcpu=power9 on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121007 --- Comment #15 from Vladimir Makarov --- Sorry, It looks I omitted PR header in the commit message. Here is the link to the patch I've committed https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=06c41504bd4a23c3f5848793fda503c30fe51353

[Bug testsuite/121042] New: testsuite/g++.dg/opt/musttail4.C fails for sjlj targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121042 Bug ID: 121042 Summary: testsuite/g++.dg/opt/musttail4.C fails for sjlj targets Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug tree-optimization/121041] Missed tail calls for sjlj targets with empty exception handling code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121041 --- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke --- Created attachment 61845 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61845&action=edit Patch to make tail call w/ empty exception code optimization apply to sjlj targets This patch allows

[Bug tree-optimization/121041] Missed tail calls for sjlj targets with empty exception handling code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121041 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- See also thread starting at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/689258.html . I think sjlj eh should just disable the testcases.

[Bug tree-optimization/121041] New: Missed tail calls for sjlj targets with empty exception handling code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121041 Bug ID: 121041 Summary: Missed tail calls for sjlj targets with empty exception handling code Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/119491] missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 --- Comment #11 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke --- Created attachment 61844 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61844&action=edit Patch to make optimization apply to sjlj targets This patch allows musttail3.C and musttail5.C to be

[Bug ipa/119376] [15 Regression] musttail does not get dropped after inlining?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376 Bug 119376 depends on bug 119491, which changed state. Bug 119491 Summary: missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/119491] missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED

[Bug ipa/119376] [15 Regression] musttail does not get dropped after inlining?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119376 Bug 119376 depends on bug 119491, which changed state. Bug 119491 Summary: missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/119491] missed tail call due to exceptions which is empty

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119491 Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug ipa/120987] [13/14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r12-5541-g2cadaa1f134bec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15/16 regression] gdb |[13/14/15/16 regression]

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/121040] ICE on g++15.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121040 --- Comment #4 from Chameleon --- ... if I write the correct && (SquareMatrix> instead of wrong (SquareMatrix>

[Bug c++/121040] ICE on g++15.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121040 --- Comment #3 from Chameleon --- ICE can be avoided if I write the missing && in the code. But it is an ICE and it must be reported.

[Bug c++/121040] ICE on g++15.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121040 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug c++/121040] ICE on g++15.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121040 --- Comment #1 from Chameleon --- Created attachment 61843 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61843&action=edit The .ii file, .xz compressed

[Bug c++/121040] New: ICE on g++15.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121040 Bug ID: 121040 Summary: ICE on g++15.1 Product: gcc Version: 15.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: unassig

[Bug ada/114065] gnat build with -D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 fails on 32bit archs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114065 --- Comment #54 from hainque at adacore dot com --- > > We're still validating v18 in-house. Our biggest testsuite still shows > about 15 test failures, which so far we believe should all be ok this > still needs to be confirmed. Some of the tes

[Bug fortran/117077] ICE due to allocatable component in hidden type

--- Comment #2 from Jerry DeLisle --- Confirmed still on gcc version 16.0.0 20250711 (experimental) (GCC) $ gfc pr117077.f90 pr117077.f90:20:31: 20 | print *, allocated(f%third) | 1 internal compiler error: in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2794 0x22093df

[Bug other/121039] RFE: optionally capture suppressed diagnostics in SARIF output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121039 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- For reference on .NET's SuppressMessage attribute: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fundamentals/code-analysis/suppress-warnings#use-the-suppressmessageattribute which has a "Justification" argumen

[Bug other/121039] New: RFE: optionally capture suppressed diagnostics in SARIF output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121039 Bug ID: 121039 Summary: RFE: optionally capture suppressed diagnostics in SARIF output Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic,

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 --- Comment #20 from Tom de Vries --- Seems to be fixed by: ... diff --git a/gcc/ipa-modref.c b/gcc/ipa-modref.c index 9e537b04196..fbdf8da36df 100644 --- a/gcc/ipa-modref.c +++ b/gcc/ipa-modref.c @@ -5109,7 +5109,6 @@ ipa_merge_modref_summary_a

[Bug c++/110338] Implement C++26 language features

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110338 Bug 110338 depends on bug 119064, which changed state. Bug 119064 Summary: [C++26] P2786R13 - Trivial Relocatability https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119064 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c++/119064] [C++26] P2786R13 - Trivial Relocatability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119064 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/119064] [C++26] P2786R13 - Trivial Relocatability

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119064 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:981bd3e62cd271f620892cf5db56f00b4df50156 commit r16-2206-g981bd3e62cd271f620892cf5db56f00b4df50156 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: F

[Bug target/117007] Poor optimization for small vector constants needed for vector shift/rotate/mask generation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117007 --- Comment #18 from Steven Munroe --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #17) > Hi! > > So, why do we not generate xxspltib where it would help. Please send a > patch? > Improvements will usually be to the xxspltib-generating code i

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #39 from Jakub Jelinek --- Sorry for screwing the value and I didn't see it should be in too. I think only P3378R2 adds it to the further headers.

[Bug preprocessor/119562] ICE when trying to token-paste an unterminated raw string

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119562 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jiangchangwu at smail dot nju.edu.

[Bug preprocessor/121033] ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault with invalid new-line in raw string delimiter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121033 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 Tom de Vries changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug testsuite/120591] SARIF tests depend on (length of) directory name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120591 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Looking at a recent gcc.sum on my own machine for that test, I see: PASS: gcc.dg/sarif-output/bad-pragma.c (test .sarif output against SARIF 2.1 schema) PASS: gcc.dg/sarif-output/bad-pragma.c (test .sarif

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #38 from Jonathan Wakely --- I'll fix that, thanks.

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #37 from Hana Dusíková --- Btw I have noticed you touched the library, btu the feature test macro is defined only in , not in and also the value is 202502L, which is only when , , , exceptions will be constexpr (as specified P3378)

[Bug c++/120776] [C++26] P1306R5 - Expansion statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120776 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #61819|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/121027] [14 Regression] ICE with BF16 and SVE at -O2 -msve-vector-bits=256

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121027 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1f52396c6fc940224e9d858d49e41310a6dfa43d commit r16-2205-g1f52396c6fc940224e9d858d49e41310a6dfa43d Author: Richard Sandiford Da

[Bug target/110812] Check availability of builtins at expand time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110812 --- Comment #16 from Kito Cheng --- Created attachment 61841 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61841&action=edit 0001-RISC-V-Fix-candicate-PR110812.patch Candidate patch, passed rv64gc linux regression, but not clean up enoug

[Bug cobol/120998] [16 regression] unable to bootstrap with cobol and without --disable-werror

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120998 --- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson --- (In reply to James K. Lowden from comment #1) > > 20250615 (last good snapshot) and 20250622 (first bad snapshot) I can no > > longer bootstrap > > Please indicate if this problem remains with snapshot

[Bug bootstrap/121038] New: autoprofiledbootstrap is broken in few ways

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121038 Bug ID: 121038 Summary: autoprofiledbootstrap is broken in few ways Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: boot

[Bug target/120986] ICE when expanding svdot_lane_fpm intrinsic with compile time know FPMR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120986 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/121034] [16 Regression] ICE in vect_transform_reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121034 --- Comment #4 from ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > Should be fixed now. Looks like it. Thanks for the quick fix!

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #18 from Sam Ja

[Bug tree-optimization/121037] [16 Regression] 4-6% slowdown of 482.sphinx3 since r16-2088-ge9079e4f43d135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121037 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0

[Bug tree-optimization/121037] New: [16 Regression] 4-6% slowdown of 482.sphinx3 since r16-2088-ge9079e4f43d135

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121037 Bug ID: 121037 Summary: [16 Regression] 4-6% slowdown of 482.sphinx3 since r16-2088-ge9079e4f43d135 Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: mi

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think that would be weird, because it changes behavior between constant evaluation and runtime. And very hard to implement at least on the GCC side. The constant evaluation is on IL which already includ

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #35 from Hana Dusíková --- Btw another thing ... Jakub, how do you feel about disabling `-fno-exception` in consteval code or even constexpr code which doesn't result in codegen?

[Bug tree-optimization/121036] bogus -Warray-bounds with cse-able conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121036 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- With Qing's -fdiagnostics-details patch (not in trunk): ``` $ gcc a.c -O2 -Wall -Wextra -fdiagnostics-details -c a.c: In function ‘virt_to_phys’: a.c:79:84: warning: array subscript 4 is above array bounds of ‘c

[Bug tree-optimization/121036] New: bogus -Warray-bounds with cse-able conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121036 Bug ID: 121036 Summary: bogus -Warray-bounds with cse-able conditions Product: gcc Version: 16.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #34 from Jakub Jelinek --- It is true that trying to evaluate it just in case can do less harm than if it is at runtime. That said, e.g. with the constexpr printing it can print different messages and a script can launch missiles or

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 --- Comment #17 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 61839 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=61839&action=edit test-2.c I've minimized it, and dropped the print: ... $ for n in 0 1 2; do g++ test-2.c -O$n; ./a.out ; echo

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #33 from Hana Dusíková --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #32) > ... at compile-time does it matter if the what() function does something > else? It can't launch missiles or format hard drives during consteval. The > worst

[Bug tree-optimization/121035] New: ICE on valid code at -O{2,3} with "-fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-dse -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-ssa-phiopt" on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

ported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 16.0.0 20250711 (experimental) (GCC) [607] % [607] % gcctk -O3 -fno-tree-dce -fno-tree-dse -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-ssa-phiopt small.c during GIMPLE pass: pre small.c: In function ‘main’: small.c:4:5: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Hana Dusíková from comment #28) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27) > > Jason Merrill asked for that during patch review: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-July/68

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 --- Comment #16 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #15) > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #14) > > I've managed to write a synthetic example: > > I've bisect this to: > ... > commit 4d6132e59327e809a4d4e39fb94

[Bug tree-optimization/121034] [16 Regression] ICE in vect_transform_reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121034 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek --- what() is printed if derived from std::exception, constexpr, etc. E.g. /usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/cpp26/constexpr-eh9.C:108:23: in 'constexpr' expansion of 'bar(1)' /usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.d

[Bug tree-optimization/121034] [16 Regression] ICE in vect_transform_reduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=121034 --- Comment #2 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f451ef41bdcbf6d86397f734e1227c94b01cae17 commit r16-2200-gf451ef41bdcbf6d86397f734e1227c94b01cae17 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug middle-end/120987] [14/15/16 regression] gdb build with lto triggers use after free since r14-5831-gaae723d360ca26

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120987 --- Comment #15 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #14) > I've managed to write a synthetic example: I've bisect this to: ... commit 4d6132e59327e809a4d4e39fb9465dbd43775b7c Author: Richard Biener Date: Thu Aug 10 1

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #30 from Hana Dusíková --- Core told me to take the note out because there is no exception in moment I'm printing error, because it's not valid constant evaluation therefore invalid program. Which seems legal technicality. Btw did yo

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- For std::exception or classes derived from it the standard documents what what() means. For other classes the standard doesn't say anything on those, even if it has const char * return type and is constexp

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #28 from Hana Dusíková --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #27) > (In reply to Hana Dusíková from comment #26) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25) > > > In the end this is done only for classes derived from std::

[Bug c++/117785] [C++26] P3068R5 - constexpr exceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117785 --- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Hana Dusíková from comment #26) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #25) > > In the end this is done only for classes derived from std::exception, to > > match e.g. the verbose terminate

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >