[Bug target/95962] Inefficient code for simple arm_neon.h iota operation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95962 --- Comment #3 from Tamar Christina --- This is now fixed on trunk, at least for ld1/st1. Was this ticket about the general problem for loads or just the ld1/st1 examples? I'll leave it open since we still need to do the rest of the loads/store

[Bug c/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252 --- Comment #1 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- My march=native should expand to: -march=tigerlake -mmmx -mpopcnt -msse -msse2 -msse3 -mssse3 -msse4.1 -msse4.2 -mavx -mavx2 -mno-sse4a -mno-fma4 -mno-xop -mfma -mavx512f -mbmi -mbmi2 -maes -mpclmul -m

[Bug c++/101597] [12 Regression] ICE in pretty-printer formatting an OBJ_TYPE_REF since r12-2132-ga110855667782dac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101597 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- I guess the problem is that for the middle-end, pointer conversions are considered useless (with the small exceptions or different address spaces and function/method vs. object pointers or if the pointers ha

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0) > Hi, > ipa-fnsummary sets can_change_signature flag which determines whether we can > manipulate parameters of a given function. It tests: > >/* Type attr

[Bug target/103197] ppc inline expansion of memcpy/memmove should not use lxsibzx/stxsibx for a single byte

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103197 --- Comment #4 from acsawdey at gcc dot gnu.org --- I was compiling with -mcpu=power9, yes: /home2/sawdey/work/gcc/trunk/build/gcc/xgcc -B/home2/sawdey/work/gcc/trunk/build/gcc -O3 -mcpu=power9 bug2.c

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0) ... > > Martin, I wonder if if you would be OK with simply dropping the access when > > function signature changes (whic

[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c29c9d6a7d80ece7e08eb546ca4a1ba1430a9b3 commit r12-5274-g6c29c9d6a7d80ece7e08eb546ca4a1ba1430a9b3 Author: Aldy Hernandez Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/103207] [12 Regression] ICE in verify_range, at value-range.cc:385 since r12-4766-g113dab2b9d511f3a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103207 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/102009] [12 Regression] ICE: in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3272 by r12-2976

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102009 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/102009] [12 Regression] ICE: in gimple_call_arg, at gimple.h:3272 by r12-2976

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102009 --- Comment #3 from Martin Sebor --- gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p() returns false even for calls with trivial mismatches like an int where a size_t is expected. I would prefer a less restrictive test that doesn't prevent detecting the

[Bug c/101702] [12 Regression] ICE: in handle_argspec_attribute, at c-family/c-attribs.c:3623

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101702 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/102131] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-3136

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102131 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Any further progress on this?

[Bug tree-optimization/103253] New: [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in convert_mult_to_fma)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103253 Bug ID: 103253 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in convert_mult_to_fma) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-

[Bug tree-optimization/102134] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102134 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252 --- Comment #2 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- Here's a more minimal test case: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/15hnsb6of And even smaller: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/KG63ErzEr

[Bug tree-optimization/103253] [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in convert_mult_to_fma or in vect_recog_mask_conversion_pattern)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103253 Arseny Solokha changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12 Regression] ICE:|[12 Regression] ICE:

[Bug c/71852] add warning for conditions that can never be true (missed -Wtautological-compare?)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71852 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek --- I think you meant https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commitdiff;h=bc7fe95200214ce70419fde6f965dc88bbd645a6

[Bug tree-optimization/103254] New: [12 Regression] Compile time hog in compare_values_warnv

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103254 Bug ID: 103254 Summary: [12 Regression] Compile time hog in compare_values_warnv Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: compile-time-hog

[Bug c++/102413] [12 Regression] ICE in cp_lexer_consume_token, at cp/parser.c:1172

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102413 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/103215] [12 regression] gcc generates unexpected warnings on libx11-1.7.2: error: array subscript -2 is outside array bounds of since r12-3124-g820f0940d7ace130

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||56456 --- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor

[Bug tree-optimization/103215] [12 regression] gcc generates unexpected warnings on libx11-1.7.2: error: array subscript -2 is outside array bounds of since r12-3124-g820f0940d7ace130

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103215 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug target/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- On https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/KG63ErzEr I don't see anything wrong, ia32 has just a few GPRs and all of them are heavily used in the loop, so if the %k? registers aren't slower than memory, it seems just fine

[Bug target/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jason A. Donenfeld from comment #2) > Here's a more minimal test case: https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/15hnsb6of kmovd k0, ecx mov ecx, DWORD PTR __libc_tsd_CTYPE_B@gotntpoff[eb

[Bug c/103255] New: [10 Regression] optimization breaks address of struct member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103255 Bug ID: 103255 Summary: [10 Regression] optimization breaks address of struct member Product: gcc Version: 11.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/103256] New: Internal compiler error after using iostream and filesystem as modules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103256 Bug ID: 103256 Summary: Internal compiler error after using iostream and filesystem as modules Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug target/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252 --- Comment #5 from Jason A. Donenfeld --- > This one is fine/ok as GCC is using k0 as a spill register rather than > spilling to memory. 32bit x86 has limited registers and all. There is nothing > odd about this one even. Right, okay, I see

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > I replied earlier on gcc-patches: I've always intended the access attribute > to eventually benefit optimization so please feel free (and encouraged :) to > use i

[Bug tree-optimization/103255] [11/12 Regression] optimization breaks address of struct member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103255 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.3 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] New: [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

orl%edx, %edx xorl%eax, %eax movl%edx, c(%rip) popq%rcx .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 ret .cfi_endproc gcc-trunk -v Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 12.0.0 2025 (e

[Bug fortran/103258] New: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103258 Bug ID: 103258 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug fortran/103137] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_simplify_transpose, at fortran/simplify.c:8181 since r12-4967-gbcf3728abe848888

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103137 --- Comment #7 from G. Steinmetz --- Thank you very much for fixing this issue (and for the other ones).

[Bug fortran/103259] New: [11/12 Regression] ICE in resolve_common_vars, at fortran/resolve.c:956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103259 Bug ID: 103259 Summary: [11/12 Regression] ICE in resolve_common_vars, at fortran/resolve.c:956 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/103260] New: ICE in gfc_simplify_reshape, at fortran/simplify.c:6857

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103260 Bug ID: 103260 Summary: ICE in gfc_simplify_reshape, at fortran/simplify.c:6857 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug fortran/103261] New: ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4742

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103261 Bug ID: 103261 Summary: ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4742 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug fortran/103261] ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4742

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103261 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code --- Comment #1 from

[Bug middle-end/103262] New: [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c after r12-5242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262 Bug ID: 103262 Summary: [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c after r12-5242 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/103263] New: ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4830

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103263 Bug ID: 103263 Summary: ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4830 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug middle-end/103262] [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c after r12-5242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/103263] ICE in gfc_check_reshape, at fortran/check.c:4830

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103263 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from G.

[Bug tree-optimization/103255] [11/12 Regression] optimization breaks address of struct member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103255 --- Comment #2 from Ilya Lipnitskiy --- Thanks for coming up with a better test case! Looks like tree-vrp is related for x64 as well[0]. -Os -fno-tree-vrp or -O2 -fno-tree-vrp appears to work-around the problem. [0]: https://github.com/openwrt

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/103262] [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c after r12-5242

pbase 20061220-1.c -dumpbase-ext .c -mtune=generic -march=pentium4 -O1 -version -o 20061220-1.s ==2421026== GNU C17 (GCC) version 12.0.0 2025 (experimental) (i686-linux) compiled by GNU C version 12.0.0 2025 (experimental), GMP version 6.2.0, MPFR version 4.1.0-p13, MPC version 1.2.1

[Bug c++/12228] [DR 244/399] syntax error calling a qualified template dtor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12228 S. Davis Herring changed: What|Removed |Added CC||herring at lanl dot gov --- Comment #

[Bug testsuite/103264] New: [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/merge_block.c fails after r12-5236

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103264 Bug ID: 103264 Summary: [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/merge_block.c fails after r12-5236 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/103265] New: Default initializer on [[no_unique_address]] member initialized by lambda invoking guaranteed copy elision crashes gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103265 Bug ID: 103265 Summary: Default initializer on [[no_unique_address]] member initialized by lambda invoking guaranteed copy elision crashes gcc Product: gcc Versi

[Bug middle-end/103262] [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c after r12-5242

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262 --- Comment #3 from H.J. Lu --- merge_call_side_effects has modref_parm_map chain_map; ... for (auto kill : saved_kills) { if (kill.parm_index >= (int)parm_map.length ()) continue; modref_parm_map

[Bug tree-optimization/103266] New: [12 regression] llvm-13 miscompilation: __builtin_assume_aligned causes over-aggressive dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103266 Bug ID: 103266 Summary: [12 regression] llvm-13 miscompilation: __builtin_assume_aligned causes over-aggressive dce Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libfortran/102992] fortran: redirecting standard out to a file does not work on macOS 12.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102992 --- Comment #31 from Jürgen Reuter --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #29) > (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #28) > I've posted a fix for this (it is the fix for darwin21 DTORs in general) > however CAVEAT : there is No

[Bug fortran/103115] [12 Regression] reallocation of character array fails when appending a constant size 4 array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103115 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, |

[Bug libfortran/102992] fortran: redirecting standard out to a file does not work on macOS 12.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102992 --- Comment #32 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- (In reply to Jürgen Reuter from comment #31) > Does this now mean that this is fixed within the gcc trunk/master? Or just in > a branch which has yet to be merged into the master? The patch was p

[Bug middle-end/103262] [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c by r12-5244

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug tree-optimization/103266] [12 regression] llvm-13 miscompilation: __builtin_assume_aligned causes over-aggressive dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103266 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-11-15 Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/103208] [12 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption (Existing SSA name for symbol marked for renaming),or ICE in make_decl_rtl, at varasm.c:1446 since r12-4733-g2084b5f42a4432da

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103208 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libfortran/102992] fortran: redirecting standard out to a file does not work on macOS 12.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102992 --- Comment #33 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fabe8cc41e9b01913e2016861237d1d99d7567bf commit r12-5281-gfabe8cc41e9b01913e2016861237d1d99d7567bf Author: Iain Sandoe Date: Th

[Bug fortran/103259] [11/12 Regression] ICE in resolve_common_vars, at fortran/resolve.c:956

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103259 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug libfortran/102992] fortran: redirecting standard out to a file does not work on macOS 12.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102992 --- Comment #34 from Iain Sandoe --- I did ask for OK on back-ports We should let it bake on master for now - I see reports that 12.1 ia under test - but no idea when it will come out (or if this particular issue will be fixed in it). In any e

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- For an attribute access that's explicitly specified on the declaration of a function I think these steps should work: 1) Call init_attr_rdwr_indices() to initialize the mapping for the original function with

[Bug tree-optimization/103192] [12 Regression] ICE on libgomp target-in-reduction-2.{C,c}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103192 Andrew Macleod changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/102759] [12 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault in maybe_check_access_sizes since r12-2976-gb48d4e6818674898

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102759 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor

[Bug analyzer/102662] [12 Regression] ICE in validate, at analyzer/constraint-manager.cc:581 since r12-3101-g8ca7fa84a3af355c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102662 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from David Malc

[Bug tree-optimization/103184] [12 Regression] ICE caused by r12-5102

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c19122bf5afa5cb479fd9445f0c591c52add09b commit r12-5282-g4c19122bf5afa5cb479fd9445f0c591c52add09b Author: H.J. Lu Date: Fri Nov 12 07

[Bug middle-end/103184] [12 Regression] ICE caused by r12-5102

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103184 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |middle-end Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #8 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 > > --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- > (In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #4) > > (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #0) >

[Bug testsuite/103264] [12 regression] gcc.dg/tree-prof/merge_block.c fails after r12-5236

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103264 --- Comment #1 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- What breaks in the testcase is updating profile after complete loop unroling. I suspect the unrolling is enabled by the extra DSE.

[Bug middle-end/103262] [12 Regression] Random FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20061220-1.c by r12-5244

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103262 --- Comment #5 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- re: "only on power 10". Not quite true. I tried running it a bunch of times on power 8, 9, and 10. r12-5244 fails consistently on power 9 and power 10 but not on power 8 (nor 7 from previous te

[Bug tree-optimization/103266] [12 regression] llvm-13 miscompilation: __builtin_assume_aligned causes over-aggressive dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103266 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenther at suse dot de --- Comment #2 f

[Bug tree-optimization/103176] -foptimize-strlen causes stringop-overflow warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103176 --- Comment #7 from Martin Sebor --- You're welcome and no need to apologize. We want to improve the warnings (and the rest of the compiler) and these reports help us understand both the limitations and opportunities for improvements, or at lea

[Bug tree-optimization/103266] [12 regression] llvm-13 miscompilation: __builtin_assume_aligned causes over-aggressive dce

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103266 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod --- At issue is GORI does not yet process COND_EXPRS, so we cannot do any evaluations to refine ranges on outgoing edges. It is on the list :-)

[Bug fortran/99061] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_intrinsic_atan2d, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:4728

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99061 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.

[Bug ipa/103267] New: Wrong code with ipa-sra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103267 Bug ID: 103267 Summary: Wrong code with ipa-sra Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ipa Assignee:

[Bug tree-optimization/103192] [12 Regression] ICE on libgomp target-in-reduction-2.{C,c}

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103192 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod --- I added a series of vrp passes to see when things go amok. immediately before DOM3, we see: [local count: 22683134]: if (outer_ctx_1389 != 0B) goto ; [70.00%] else goto ; [30.00%] [loca

[Bug tree-optimization/103223] [12 regression] Access attribute dropped when ipa-sra is applied

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103223 --- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor --- Outside of code comments only the user-visible attribute access interface is documented in the manual. The main difference is probably that attribute access can be added by the user for any pair of arguments

[Bug tree-optimization/103245] Failure to detect abs pattern using multiplication with slightly different casts for unsigned case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103245 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 51801 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51801&action=edit patch which I am testing I noticed the patterns could be combined together.

[Bug analyzer/102779] gcc.dg/analyzer/capacity-1.c etc.FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102779 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-11-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/103233] Warning from system libraries in user code: CWE-476 -Werror=analyzer-null-dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- The analyzer doesn't properly support C++ yet; in particular, it doesn't yet "understand" exception handling.

[Bug c++/103265] Default initializer on [[no_unique_address]] member initialized by lambda invoking guaranteed copy elision crashes gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103265 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-11-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug analyzer/103233] Warning from system libraries in user code: CWE-476 -Werror=analyzer-null-dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233 --- Comment #5 from Alejandro Colomar --- Is `-fanalyzer` allowed to report errors from system headers exclusively? I mean, ignoring the fact that C++ is unsupported, there's no report at all that relates that error report to my code; not even

[Bug tree-optimization/103268] New: [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268 Bug ID: 103268 Summary: [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626 Product: gcc Version

[Bug analyzer/103233] Warning from system libraries in user code: CWE-476 -Werror=analyzer-null-dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233 --- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar --- I mean, I'm not against that, in fact I think it's good to know if my program is going to crash, even if it's not my fault, but then I wonder if cases such as

[Bug tree-optimization/103268] [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code Target Milestone|--

[Bug analyzer/103233] Warning from system libraries in user code: CWE-476 -Werror=analyzer-null-dereference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103233 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #5) > If glibc had a bug, > and I compiled a C program that had perfectly defined behavior, > would I receive a report for that error? Most C headers don't conta

[Bug target/103269] New: Enable ZMM in MOVE_MAX and STORE_MAX_PIECES without -mprefer-vector-width=512

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103269 Bug ID: 103269 Summary: Enable ZMM in MOVE_MAX and STORE_MAX_PIECES without -mprefer-vector-width=512 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/103238] c++ Feature: array-copy experimental extensions implementing P1997

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103238 --- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- On Sun, 14 Nov 2021, wjwray at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs wrote: > An interesting suggestion is that these array extensions be incorporated into > C and C++ standards as a DR, applying as t

[Bug tree-optimization/103268] [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com,

[Bug tree-optimization/103268] [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/103268] [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 51802 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51802&action=edit A patch

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-11-16 Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/103257] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103257 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/103252] questionable codegen with kmovd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103252 --- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu --- > For the original example, though, it doesn't seem to even be saving a spill. > The non-k0 code is clearly better than the k0 code. I don't know much about > how the allocator works and interacts with various

[Bug c++/103238] c++ Feature: array-copy experimental extensions implementing P1997

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103238 --- Comment #2 from Will Wray --- (It was my own 'interesting suggestion' to myself; going stir crazy coding!) (Apologies if I stirred anything other than thought.) Thank you for emphasising the important point on DRs. It's true that some C++ D

[Bug tree-optimization/103194] [12 Regression] ice in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and with __sync_fetch_and_and since r12-5102-gfb161782545224f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194 --- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #9) > (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #6) > > Created attachment 51785 [details] > > The v2 incomplete patch > > > > Hongtao, please finish it. Thanks. > > I'm tryi

[Bug tree-optimization/103268] [12 regression] ICE om glib-2.10.1: internal compiler error: in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and, at tree-ssa-ccp.c:3626

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103268 --- Comment #5 from Hongtao.liu --- I've verified my patch in pr103194, it can also fix this ICE.

[Bug tree-optimization/86604] phiopt missed optimization of conditional add

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86604 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Sure it does but we 1) cannot make the dereference of t unconditional > because it > may trap, 2) we do not implement the transform > > if ([0, 1] var == 0) >

[Bug tree-optimization/100802] VRP fails to fold comparison using known value orders

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100802 Feng Xue changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED --- Comment #2 from Feng Xue --- V

[Bug tree-optimization/103194] [12 Regression] ice in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and with __sync_fetch_and_and since r12-5102-gfb161782545224f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194 --- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > unsigned long pscc_a_2_3; > int pscc_a_1_4; > unsigned long pc2; > void pscc(int n) > { > long mask = 1ll << n; > pc2 = __sync_fetch_and_or(&pscc_a_2_3, mask) & mas

[Bug tree-optimization/103194] [12 Regression] ice in optimize_atomic_bit_test_and with __sync_fetch_and_and since r12-5102-gfb161782545224f5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103194 --- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu --- Should we open a new bug for missed optimization?

<    1   2   3   >