[Bug c++/101338] New: Redeclaration of template members in subclass fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101338 Bug ID: 101338 Summary: Redeclaration of template members in subclass fails Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/101024] Missed min expression at phiopt1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- gcc.dg/tree-ssa/phi-opt-20.c is another case which is missing right now, it deals with EQ_EXPR/NE_EXPR.

[Bug tree-optimization/101256] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since r12-1841-g9fe9c45ae33a2df7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101256 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:51abfb6a893c87dbf84a33009b6cd6dbd25d66f1 commit r12-2048-g51abfb6a893c87dbf84a33009b6cd6dbd25d66f1 Author: Andrew Pinski Date: T

[Bug target/100782] [11 Regression] sh4 ICEs on -O2 -fPIE -fstack-protector: internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100782 --- Comment #3 from Sergei Trofimovich --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > The description says: > > gcc version 12.0.0 20210526 (experimental) (GCC) > > so is this about GCC 12 or GCC 11? What version worked fine (why's this >

[Bug tree-optimization/101256] [12 Regression] Wrong code with -O3 since r12-1841-g9fe9c45ae33a2df7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101256 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/101326] std::optional returns forced through stack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101326 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > and yes, if it would have had TImode we could expand it to a register pair > but it has BLKmode because it's TYPE_NEEDS_CONSTRUCTING(?), the type > isn't TREE_A

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #22) So an update on this > * abs_replacement: needs PROP_gimple_lswitch so we don't change if > statements early enough > ** I think majority of the abs handling is

[Bug tree-optimization/42117] VRP should do if-conversion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42117 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|42195 | Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/59424] Optimization issue on min/max

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59424 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/49959] ABS pattern is not recognized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49959 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/54571] Missed optimization converting between bit sets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54571 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Confirmed. The natural place to optimize this is the tree level phiopt pass. > > : > _3 = x_2(D) & 2; > if (_3 != 0) > goto ; > else > goto ; >

[Bug tree-optimization/70547] Optimize multiplication of booleans to bit_and

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/101339] New: (bit_and (negate (convert thurth_value@1)) integer_onep) is not optimized to just @1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101339 Bug ID: 101339 Summary: (bit_and (negate (convert thurth_value@1)) integer_onep) is not optimized to just @1 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Key

[Bug tree-optimization/101339] (bit_and (negate (convert thurth_value@1)) integer_onep) is not optimized to just @1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101339 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

bug with pointer alias

Dear GCC I think there is a problem with using pointer aliases with gfortan, something that does not appear on ifort nor ftn (Cray) I did initially post my problem on stackoverflow with a minimal example: What is wrong with this fortran code using pointer aliases - Stack Overflow

[Bug target/101325] [12 Regression] arm: Wrong code with MVE vcmpeqq intrinsic since r12-671-gd083fbf72

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regression] arm: Wrong |[12 Regression] arm: Wrong

[Bug tree-optimization/101339] (bit_and (negate (convert thurth_value@1)) integer_onep) is not optimized to just @1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101339 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- And int f(int a, int b) { _Bool c = a == b; int t = c; int t1 = t + 1; return t1 & 1; } is not optimized to return (int)a != b either (for any odd add). Addition of even adds is handled though.

[Bug target/101325] [12 Regression] arm: Wrong code with MVE vcmpeqq intrinsic since r12-671-gd083fbf72

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101325 Christophe Lyon changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |clyon at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug bootstrap/100246] [11/12 Regression] GCC will not bootstrap with clang 3.4/3.5 [xcode 5/6, Darwin 12/13]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100246 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f99f6eb58e1f894dae024f63cc2fe30fa7605e59 commit r12-2052-gf99f6eb58e1f894dae024f63cc2fe30fa7605e59 Author: Iain Sandoe Date: Sat

[Bug tree-optimization/101340] New: SLP discovery via vect_slp_linearize_chain is imperfect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101340 Bug ID: 101340 Summary: SLP discovery via vect_slp_linearize_chain is imperfect Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug tree-optimization/101340] SLP discovery via vect_slp_linearize_chain is imperfect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101340 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 51108 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51108&action=edit testcase for the testsuite

[Bug tree-optimization/101340] SLP discovery via vect_slp_linearize_chain is imperfect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101340 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Patch that breaks for example gfortran.dg/PR100120.f90 because it expands multi-uses inside a chain: diff --git a/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c b/gcc/tree-vect-slp.c index 2813b3dbe91..0c93be8e4d5 100644 --- a/gcc/t

[Bug target/98321] [nvptx] 'atom.add.f32' for atomic add of 32-bit 'float'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98321 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug gcov-profile/101341] New: [Gcov] Wrong coverage with "for(;;a++)" loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101341 Bug ID: 101341 Summary: [Gcov] Wrong coverage with "for(;;a++)" loop statement Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug gcov-profile/101342] New: [Gcov] Wrong coverage with "for(;;a++)" loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101342 Bug ID: 101342 Summary: [Gcov] Wrong coverage with "for(;;a++)" loop statement Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug gcov-profile/101342] [Gcov] wrong coverage for the function with a loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101342 Xiaoyuan Xie changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[Gcov] Wrong coverage with |[Gcov] wrong coverage for

[Bug c++/101343] New: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101343 Bug ID: 101343 Summary: ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15732 Product: gcc Version: 9.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/101296] Addition of x86 addsub SLP patterned slowed down 433.milc by 12% on znver2 with -Ofast -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101296 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/100269] [12 Regression] i686 biarch compiler fails for Darwin after r12-36.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100269 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/101342] [Gcov] wrong coverage for the function with a loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101342 --- Comment #2 from Xiaoyuan Xie --- I clicked the wrong button on my page and the same content was submitted twice, please ignore the content in the description and directly read the comments 1.

[Bug target/101324] powerpc64le: hashst appears before mflr at -O1 or higher

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mliska at suse dot cz --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/100439] stack overflow running ubsan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439 --- Comment #13 from Florin Iucha --- With GCC 11-20210703 snapshot I can reproduce the observation on Ubuntu 20.04 but can not reproduce the observation on Debian testing.

[Bug tree-optimization/101301] Improving sparse switch statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101301 --- Comment #8 from Thomas Koenig --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > Yeah :-) Of course in your testing the nine named cases have the same > probability, > which is not very true in practice (but is there any better guess p

[Bug target/101324] powerpc64le: hashst appears before mflr at -O1 or higher

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101324 Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #51105|0 |1 is obsolete

[Bug gcov-profile/101341] [Gcov] Wrong coverage with "for(;;a++)" loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101341 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug gcov-profile/101342] [Gcov] wrong coverage for the function with a loop statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101342 --- Comment #3 from Andreas Schwab --- *** Bug 101341 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/101344] New: braced-init-list not supported in an aggregate deduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101344 Bug ID: 101344 Summary: braced-init-list not supported in an aggregate deduction Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug tree-optimization/101301] Improving sparse switch statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101301 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #8) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #7) > > > Yeah :-) Of course in your testing the nine named cases have the same > > probability, > > which i

[Bug target/101345] New: wrong code at -O1 with vector modulo

cc version 12.0.0 20210706 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug c/101346] New: ICE: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101346 Bug ID: 101346 Summary: ICE: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/97194] optimize vector element set/extract at variable position

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97194 --- Comment #25 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Uros Bizjak : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f65878178ab05180a5937f11f8fdb755678a82ce commit r12-2085-gf65878178ab05180a5937f11f8fdb755678a82ce Author: Uros Bizjak Date: Tue J

[Bug c/101347] New: [11/12 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_initialize, at cfgrtl.c:4478

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101347 Bug ID: 101347 Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_initialize, at cfgrtl.c:4478 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/101348] New: ICE in gfc_get_nodesc_array_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:1697

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101348 Bug ID: 101348 Summary: ICE in gfc_get_nodesc_array_type, at fortran/trans-types.c:1697 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/101328] ICE in conv_array_index_offset, at fortran/trans-array.c:3425

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101328 --- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz --- Additional cases : $ cat z3.f90 module m type t integer :: a = 1 end type contains subroutine s(x) type(t), intent(out) :: x(..) end end $ cat z5.f90 module m type t inte

[Bug sanitizer/100439] stack overflow running ubsan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100439 --- Comment #14 from Florin Iucha --- Bisecting the configure flags, I think I narrowed it down to: it fails when "--enable-gnu-indirect-function" is present.

[Bug fortran/101349] New: ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field, at fortran/trans-array.c:140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101349 Bug ID: 101349 Summary: ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field, at fortran/trans-array.c:140 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/101350] New: ICE in build_function_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:2376

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101350 Bug ID: 101350 Summary: ICE in build_function_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:2376 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug fortran/101327] ICE in find_array_element, at fortran/expr.c:1355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101327 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c/101346] ICE: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101346 --- Comment #1 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to G. Steinmetz from comment #0) > $ gcc-12-20210704 -c z1.c -O0 -m32 -fprofile-generate Also needs -msse. It looks that: (insn 38 37 39 6 (set (subreg:SI (reg:TD 83 [ _2 ]) 0) (subreg:SI

[Bug fortran/101349] ICE in gfc_get_descriptor_field, at fortran/trans-array.c:140

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101349 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/101347] [11/12 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_initialize with __builtin_setjmp and -fprofile-generate -fprofile-use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101347 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12 Regression] ICE in |[11/12 Regression] ICE in

[Bug libstdc++/100900] error: missing 'typename' prior to dependent type name in elements_view

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100900 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e9fbf0f9d621213ea16713b595feb88b789a8858 commit r10-9969-ge9fbf0f9d621213ea16713b595feb88b789a8858 Author: Avi Kivity Da

[Bug middle-end/98871] Cannot silence -Wmaybe-uninitialized at declaration site

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98871 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d3bab5d5adb3e28ddb16c97b0831efdea23cf7d commit r12-2087-g6d3bab5d5adb3e28ddb16c97b0831efdea23cf7d Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug tree-optimization/98512] [11/12 Regression] “#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored” ineffective in conjunction with alias attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98512 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d3bab5d5adb3e28ddb16c97b0831efdea23cf7d commit r12-2087-g6d3bab5d5adb3e28ddb16c97b0831efdea23cf7d Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug libstdc++/100900] error: missing 'typename' prior to dependent type name in elements_view

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100900 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|11.2|10.4 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka

[Bug fortran/101350] ICE in build_function_decl, at fortran/trans-decl.c:2376

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101350 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug libfortran/101305] Bind(C): Problems with incorrect kinds/sizes in ISO_Fortran_binding.h and CFI_establish

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101305 --- Comment #1 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- There's also some overlap with PR 100917, relating to long double. Getting rid of the hard-coded kind/size assumptions will take care of at least the C side of that issue.

[Bug debug/101283] Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:151b423a82f4bf15e3225833028f5258ea254cb9 commit r12-2090-g151b423a82f4bf15e3225833028f5258ea254cb9 Author: Indu Bhagat Date: Tue

[Bug c/101351] New: ICE on valid code with -O1: in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.c:1837

algorithms: zlib gcc version 12.0.0 20210706 (experimental) [master revision :e442981a9:a3543b5e8002c033b2304d7ac1d1e58218eebb51] (GCC) $ cat mutant.c foo() { register _Complex long a asm("rax"); return a / 10; } $ gcc-trunk -w -O1 mutant.c mutant.c: In function ‘foo’: mutant.c:

[Bug target/100782] [11 Regression] sh4 ICEs on -O2 -fPIE -fstack-protector: internal compiler error: in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100782 --- Comment #4 from Sergei Trofimovich --- Bisected down to r11-4577 commit 44fbc9c6e02ca5b8f98f25b514ed7588e7ba733d Author: Vladimir N. Makarov Date: Fri Oct 30 15:05:22 2020 -0400 Take insn scratch RA requirements into account in IRA.

[Bug tree-optimization/86650] -Warray-bounds missing inlining context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ee9a0e93156ff3d41450db74172abc8ae2471d1f commit r12-2091-gee9a0e93156ff3d41450db74172abc8ae2471d1f Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug tree-optimization/86650] -Warray-bounds missing inlining context

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 86650, which changed state. Bug 86650 Summary: -Warray-bounds missing inlining context https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86650 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c/101352] New: ICE on valid code: in convert_move, at expr.c:279

: zlib gcc version 12.0.0 20210706 (experimental) [master revision :e442981a9:a3543b5e8002c033b2304d7ac1d1e58218eebb51] (GCC) $ cat mutant.c void g(i) int i __attribute__((__vector_size__(16))); {} $ gcc-trunk mutant.c during RTL pass: expand mutant.c: In function ‘g’: mutant.c:1:6: internal

[Bug c++/101353] New: [x86-64] missed optimization: missed tail call in placement-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101353 Bug ID: 101353 Summary: [x86-64] missed optimization: missed tail call in placement-new Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/55881] #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored ignored when inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55881 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Sebor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e8db5f70f27b6de8139339ef1866eaa153c2bf67 commit r12-2092-ge8db5f70f27b6de8139339ef1866eaa153c2bf67 Author: Martin Sebor Date: Tue

[Bug c/101352] ICE on valid code: in convert_move, at expr.c:279

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101352 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target|

[Bug middle-end/55881] #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored ignored when inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55881 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.2.0, 11.1.0, 4.7.0,

[Bug tree-optimization/101353] [x86-64] missed optimization: missed tail call in placement-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101353 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug inline-asm/101354] New: [11/12 regression] naked function mishandled - store optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101354 Bug ID: 101354 Summary: [11/12 regression] naked function mishandled - store optimized away Product: gcc Version: 11.0 URL: https://godbolt.org/z/4T4x8eb4f

[Bug ipa/101354] [11/12 regression] naked function mishandled - store optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101354 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://godbolt.org/z/4T4x8 | |eb4f

[Bug debug/101283] Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97bcacfb5ac49afa4e305489dd110cc446451549 commit r12-2093-g97bcacfb5ac49afa4e305489dd110cc446451549 Author: Indu Bhagat Date: Tue

[Bug debug/101283] Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Indu Bhagat : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9e9532bb3bf5db4cd6afd49d343ede5b27c3c9f commit r12-2094-gd9e9532bb3bf5db4cd6afd49d343ede5b27c3c9f Author: Indu Bhagat Date: Tue

[Bug debug/101283] Several tests fail on Darwin with -gctf/gbtf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101283 --- Comment #18 from Indu Bhagat --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > It might make sense to provide targets a means to opt-out of CTF/BTF support > and thus diagnose -gctf as unsupported on them. Yes, I agree. It makes sense to h

[Bug testsuite/101321] gcc.dg/debug/btf/btf-bitfields-3.c fail on arm-eabi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101321 Indu Bhagat changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibhagatgnu at gmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/101250] adjust_iv_update_pos update the iv statement unexpectedly cause memory address offset mismatch

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101250 --- Comment #1 from luoxhu at gcc dot gnu.org --- Patch posted: [PATCH] ivopts: Don't adjust IV update statement if both operands use the IV in COND [PR101250] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/573894.html

[Bug c++/101355] New: compiling coroutines with ubsan emits bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101355 Bug ID: 101355 Summary: compiling coroutines with ubsan emits bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug c++/101355] compiling coroutines with ubsan emits bogus -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101355 --- Comment #1 from Dan Klishch --- Created attachment 51112 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51112&action=edit gcc with -v option output

[Bug c++/101356] New: The non-public member of a local class cannot be accessed by a friend of the class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101356 Bug ID: 101356 Summary: The non-public member of a local class cannot be accessed by a friend of the class Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug rtl-optimization/100328] IRA doesn't model matching constraint well

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100328 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug gcov-profile/101357] New: the coverage of a return statement goes wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101357 Bug ID: 101357 Summary: the coverage of a return statement goes wrong Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: gc

[Bug c/101358] New: Warn when saving a pointer to an object with temporary lifetime

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101358 Bug ID: 101358 Summary: Warn when saving a pointer to an object with temporary lifetime Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug gcov-profile/101359] New: wrong coverage for a compound statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101359 Bug ID: 101359 Summary: wrong coverage for a compound statement Product: gcc Version: 11.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: gcov-pro

[Bug gcov-profile/101360] New: [Gcov] the assignment statement is marked as executed twice while the similar statement has executed one time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101360 Bug ID: 101360 Summary: [Gcov] the assignment statement is marked as executed twice while the similar statement has executed one time Product: gcc Version: 11.0

[Bug c++/101361] New: Bogus -Wstringop-overread warning with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101361 Bug ID: 101361 Summary: Bogus -Wstringop-overread warning with -O3 Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/101343] ICE in tsubst_copy, at cp/pt.c:15732

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101343 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.1.1, 12.0 Status|UNCONF

[Bug rtl-optimization/101347] [11/12 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_initialize with __builtin_setjmp and -fprofile-generate -fprofile-use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101347 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/101347] [11/12 Regression] ICE in cfg_layout_initialize with __builtin_setjmp and -fprofile-generate -fprofile-use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101347 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug target/101351] ICE on valid code with -O1: in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.c:1837

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101351 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* --- Comment #1 from Richard

[Bug c/101352] ICE on valid code: in convert_move, at expr.c:279

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101352 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug ipa/101354] [11/12 regression] naked function mishandled - store optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101354 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target||x86_64-*-* Ever confirmed|0

[Bug ipa/101354] [11/12 regression] naked function mishandled - store optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101354 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- OTOH decl-attributes.c has generic code doing /* A "naked" function attribute implies "noinline" and "noclone" for those targets that support it. */ if (TREE_CODE (*node) == FUNCTION_DECL &