[Bug analyzer/103872] testcase fail in gcc.dg/analyzer/pr103526.c on riscv64-unknown-elf-gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103872 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target|riscv64-unknown-elf |riscv64-unknown-elf |

[Bug tree-optimization/98026] optimization dependant on condition order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98026 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod --- > void f4(signed int i,unsigned int j) { > if (i > 100) return; > if (j > i) return; > > if (j > 100) link_error(); if i is -2 (0xfffe) and j is 0xff (-1) then link error cant be remove

[Bug c++/104276] New: Fail to eliminate deadstore from vector constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 Bug ID: 104276 Summary: Fail to eliminate deadstore from vector constructor Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compone

[Bug tree-optimization/98026] optimization dependant on condition order

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98026 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4) > > void f4(signed int i,unsigned int j) { > > if (i > 100) return; > > if (j > i) return; > > > > if (j > 100) link_error(); > > if i is -2 (0xfffe)

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] Fail to eliminate deadstore from vector constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] Fail to eliminate deadstore from vector constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Full testcase: #include #include #include #include #include #define SZ 4096 std::vector foo() { auto result = std::vector(SZ); int *ptr = result.data(); for (std::size_t n = 0; n < SZ; ++n) {

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] Fail to eliminate deadstore from vector constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- >clang is unable to remove the memset in code like I think you mean GCC there :).

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] Fail to eliminate deadstore from vector constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 --- Comment #3 from Darrell Wright --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > >clang is unable to remove the memset in code like > > I think you mean GCC there :). :) both are true. This optimization would remove the need for things

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] memset is not elimited when followed by a store loop writing to that memory location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Fail to eliminate deadstore |memset is not elimited when

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] memset is not elimited when followed by a store loop writing to that memory location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/28134] optimize redundant memset + assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28134 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Darrell.Wright at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug tree-optimization/104276] memset is not elimited when followed by a store loop writing to that memory location

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104276 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|DUPLICATE

[Bug tree-optimization/80641] missed optimization with with std::vector resize in loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80641 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski --- This is interesting: _48 = _149 + 18446744073709551612; // _149 - 4 _63 = _55 + _48; _18 = _63 - _55; _19 = _18 /[ex] 4; _20 = (long unsigned int) _19; if (_55 != _63) _18 should be the same as

[Bug target/100930] PPC: Missing builtins for P9 vextsb2w, vextsb2w, vextsb2d, vextsh2d, vextsw2d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100930 Carl Love changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carll at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fro

[Bug debug/104277] New: [meta-bug] gstatement-frontiers causes fcompare-debug issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104277 Bug ID: 104277 Summary: [meta-bug] gstatement-frontiers causes fcompare-debug issues Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: compare-debug-fai

[Bug target/104268] z13: inefficient vec_popcnt for 16-bit for z13

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104268 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug c++/104266] Temporaries with protected destructor are erroneously permitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/104266] Temporaries with protected destructor are erroneously permitted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104266 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Here is another example: class X { protected: ~X(); friend struct Y; }; struct Y { X x = {}; }; int main() { Y b {}; } But unlike the previous example, this one is rejected by clang in C++14 bu

[Bug tree-optimization/104265] Missed vectorization in 526.blender_r

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104265 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug libstdc++/104190] arm-linux-gnueabi shows warnings of use-after-free of libstdc++?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104190 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/104213] [12 Regression] bogus use-after-free in virtual dtor with -ffat-lto-objects on ARM

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104213 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||unlvsur at live dot com --- Comment #15

[Bug target/104219] [12 regression] riscv64 compiler build fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104219 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug lto/104237] [11 Regression] Emitted binary code changes when -g is enabled at -O1 -flto and optimize attribute since r11-3126-ga8f9b4c54cc35062

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104237 --- Comment #9 from Chengnian Sun --- Hi, Could you explain why the flag `-fcompare-debug` does not detect this bug? Is it because the bug is triggered with -flto and -fcompare-debug does not work with -flto? Thanks.

<    1   2