[Bug jit/105296] New: libgccjit crashes when creating a struct constructor for an aligned struct type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105296 Bug ID: 105296 Summary: libgccjit crashes when creating a struct constructor for an aligned struct type Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug jit/105279] Using libgccjit produces a null pointer access in GCC's tree-optimization code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105279 --- Comment #1 from Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen --- The internal compiler error also seems to go away if I remove the pointer subtraction around line 1833 in reproducer.c. Maybe this is the real problem because I am not subtracting pointers the way

[Bug jit/105286] New: Struct initializers do not work with function pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105286 Bug ID: 105286 Summary: Struct initializers do not work with function pointers Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug jit/105279] New: Using libgccjit produces a null pointer access in GCC's tree-optimization code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105279 Bug ID: 105279 Summary: Using libgccjit produces a null pointer access in GCC's tree-optimization code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/89479] __restrict on a pointer ignored when disambiguating against a call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479 --- Comment #11 from Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1 of bug 94416) > I think there's a duplicate somewhere. We currently cannot encode "restrict" > into the "accesses" implied by a call. > > Note there's s

[Bug tree-optimization/104574] New: GCC misses basic optimization for restricted pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104574 Bug ID: 104574 Summary: GCC misses basic optimization for restricted pointers Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/86465] [9/10/11/12 Regression] C++17 triggers: ‘’ may be used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465 Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@nieper-wisskirchen.de ---

[Bug tree-optimization/103989] New: [12 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-unitialized at -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103989 Bug ID: 103989 Summary: [12 regression] std::optional and bogus -Wmaybe-unitialized at -Og Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/86465] [9/10/11/12 Regression] C++17 triggers: ‘’ may be used uninitialized in this function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86465 --- Comment #17 from Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen --- Does a viable workaround exist that doesn't amount to disabling the warning option altogether? In my case, the actual warning is triggered inside the standard library, which is used by my code that

[Bug analyzer/103546] New: Analyzer reports null dereference in flex scanners

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103546 Bug ID: 103546 Summary: Analyzer reports null dereference in flex scanners Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug ipa/97364] New: Clarify/improve documentation for __attribute__ ((pure))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97364 Bug ID: 97364 Summary: Clarify/improve documentation for __attribute__ ((pure)) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri