[Bug c++/104084] [12 regression] Internal compiler error: tree check: expected target_expr, have compound_expr in build_new_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084 --- Comment #4 from Allan Jensen --- Created attachment 52217 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52217&action=edit -E output

[Bug c++/104084] [12 regression] Internal compiler error: tree check: expected target_expr, have compound_expr in build_new_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084 --- Comment #3 from Allan Jensen --- -v output: Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=/opt/gcc/bin/g++-12 Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --prefix=/opt/gcc --program-suffix=-12 Thread model: posix

[Bug c++/104084] [12 regression] Internal compiler error: tree check: expected target_expr, have compound_expr in build_new_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084 --- Comment #2 from Allan Jensen --- Removing the (std::nothrow), and declaring the untagged new operator (instead of declaring them deleted), seems to work around the issue.

[Bug c++/104084] New: [12 regression] Internal compiler error: tree check: expected target_expr, have compound_expr in build_new_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104084 Bug ID: 104084 Summary: [12 regression] Internal compiler error: tree check: expected target_expr, have compound_expr in build_new_1 Product: gcc Version: 12.0

[Bug c++/104078] New: Some type determination weirdness

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104078 Bug ID: 104078 Summary: Some type determination weirdness Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/31667] Integer extensions vectorization could be improved

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31667 --- Comment #6 from Allan Jensen --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > We produce this now: > > movdqa x(%rip), %xmm1 > pxor%xmm0, %xmm0 > movdqa %xmm1, %xmm2 > punpckhbw %xmm0, %xmm1 >

[Bug tree-optimization/78394] False positives of maybe-uninitialized with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78394 --- Comment #17 from Allan Jensen --- Yes, if you can figure out exactly what optimization passes it needs, then we could disable the warning when those passes are disabled.