[Bug c++/102479] segfault when deducing class template arguments for tuple with libc++-14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102479 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kimhappy at hanyang dot ac.kr --- Comme

[Bug c++/82110] Concept for default constructing works with new T, not with new T[1]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Resolution|---

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 82110, which changed state. Bug 82110 Summary: Concept for default constructing works with new T, not with new T[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82110 What|Removed |Adde

[Bug target/103069] New: cmpxchg isn't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 Bug ID: 103069 Summary: cmpxchg isn't optimized Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target Assigne

[Bug c++/101906] Constant evaluation failure in concepts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101906 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug c++/70796] [DR 1030] Initialization order with braced-init-lists still broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70796 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- cp_gimplify_expr uses for CALL_EXPR_REVERSE_ARGS and CALL_EXPR_ORDERED_ARGS (and for !CALL_EXPR_OPERATOR_SYNTAX method calls) gimplify_arg, but that clearly isn't enough once there are any TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS o

[Bug c++/103067] Tautological compare warning not appearing if the self-comparison is on object members

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103067 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/35276] Doc should described how to compile mixed-language programs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug fortran/52274] [Meta-bug] Fortran translation related issues: Typos and more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on|52279 |38573, 52232, 52234, 52245,

[Bug fortran/52279] Fortran translation issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52279 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/52274] [Meta-bug] Fortran translation related issues: Typos and more

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52274 --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager --- *** Bug 52279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug fortran/35276] Doc should described how to compile mixed-language programs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35276 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |sandra at gcc dot gnu.

[Bug target/103069] cmpxchg isn't optimized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069 --- Comment #1 from Thiago Macieira --- (the assembly doesn't match the source code, but we got your point) Another possible improvement for the __atomic_fetch_{and,nand,or} functions is that it can check whether the fetched value is already co

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka --- Created attachment 51732 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51732&action=edit rough patch that folds calls to std::move/forward Does the attached rough patch help?

[Bug middle-end/103070] New: [12 regression] ICE in gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at gimple.c:1669

(c33a5cc9e7f1475108892abb147f9382ecbaec12) and 20211103 (600dcd74b8e614c996b492d97878660faf484094), gnat.dg/lto21.adb started to FAIL: +FAIL: gnat.dg/lto21.adb (internal compiler error) +FAIL: gnat.dg/lto21.adb (test for excess errors) Seen on Solaris 11/SPARC and x86 (32 and 64-bit). during

[Bug middle-end/103070] [12 regression] ICE in gimple_call_static_chain_flags, at gimple.c:1669

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103070 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/103071] New: Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a || (a & b) == b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071 Bug ID: 103071 Summary: Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a || (a & b) == b Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug c++/96780] debuginfo for std::move and std::forward isn't useful

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, from a very quick test, it does exactly what I want. As discussed on IRC, we might not want to do this folding at -O0 (although I'd personally be happy with it unconditionally).

[Bug middle-end/85614] Documentation: -fdump-tree should mention "original"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85614 Daniel Le Duc Khoi Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||greenrecyclebin at gmail dot

[Bug tree-optimization/103072] New: Folding common switch code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103072 Bug ID: 103072 Summary: Folding common switch code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization

[Bug middle-end/85614] Documentation: -fdump-tree should mention "original"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85614 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Le --- (In reply to Daniel Le from comment #1) > $ for i in $(!!); do \ > > if g++ -fdump-"$i" -S -o /dev/null a.cpp; then \ > > echo "$i: works."; \ > > else \ > > echo "

[Bug middle-end/85614] Documentation: -fdump-tree should mention "original"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85614 --- Comment #3 from Daniel Le --- Created attachment 51733 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51733&action=edit List -fdump-tree pass options that are no longer discoverable Here's the code again without any formatting issues t

[Bug middle-end/103071] Missed optimization for symmetric subset: (a & b) == a || (a & b) == b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103071 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug ipa/103073] New: [12 Regression] ICE in insert_access, at ipa-modref-tree.h:578

c-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: /testing/gcc/gcc_src_master/configure --enable-multilib --prefix=/testing/gcc/bin_master --disable-bootstrap Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 12.0.0 20211103 (62af7d9402f551fa708125fafed2950d8912b25e) (GCC)

[Bug ipa/103073] [12 Regression] ICE in insert_access, at ipa-modref-tree.h:578

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug ipa/103073] [12 Regression] ICE in insert_access, at ipa-modref-tree.h:578

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103073 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >I'm not sure about the component. It is the correct one.

[Bug target/103074] New: [11/12 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at lra-assigns.c:1649

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103074 Bug ID: 103074 Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in lra_assign, at lra-assigns.c:1649 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code

[Bug rtl-optimization/103075] New: [12 Regression] ICE in exact_int_to_float_conversion_p, at simplify-rtx.c:905

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103075 Bug ID: 103075 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in exact_int_to_float_conversion_p, at simplify-rtx.c:905 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug tree-optimization/103076] New: slp vectorizer failed to try smaller lenth.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103076 Bug ID: 103076 Summary: slp vectorizer failed to try smaller lenth. Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug testsuite/102944] Many gcc.dg/Wstringop-overflow-*.c failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102944 --- Comment #4 from Hongtao.liu --- > I'm seeing it on 64-bit sparc, and there are also reports for > s390x-ibm-linux-gnu and m68k-unknown-linux-gnu. It may be a > coincidance, but those are all big-endian targets. There seems to be a miss opt

<    1   2