[Bug tree-optimization/101895] [11 Regression] SLP Vectorizer change pushes VEC_PERM_EXPR into bad location spoiling further optimization opportunities

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101895 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|12.0|11.3 Summary|[11/12 Regress

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 101895, which changed state. Bug 101895 Summary: [11 Regression] SLP Vectorizer change pushes VEC_PERM_EXPR into bad location spoiling further optimization opportunities https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101895

[Bug tree-optimization/104947] New: ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to coalesce ssa_names 5 and 11 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104947 Bug ID: 104947 Summary: ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to coalesce ssa_names 5 and 11 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug ada/104861] s-oscons.ads should use target_noncanonical

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104861 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/101885] [10/11 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Assignee|roger at next

[Bug c/104937] wrong code with _Complex division and -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104937 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|sanitizer |c --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener

[Bug debug/104938] Possibly wrong location definition in DWARF with -ftree-cpp at -Og only

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104938 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/104946] [12 regression] Suboptimal gimple foding for blendvpd under sse4.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104946 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/104947] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to coalesce ssa_names 5 and 11 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104947 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/104947] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to coalesce ssa_names 5 and 11 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104947 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/98845] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE: SSA corruption (Unable to coalesce ssa_names 2 and 23 which are marked as MUST COALESCE.) since r6-528-g465770e43996a132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98845 --- Comment #10 from Richard Biener --- *** Bug 104947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug rtl-optimization/101885] [10/11 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101885 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|NEW Resolution|FIXED

[Bug middle-end/103641] [11 regression] Severe compile time regression in SLP vectorize step

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641 --- Comment #35 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b6950623cd13c98354b105d7210cc1cf6a284f3a commit r11-9656-gb6950623cd13c98354b105d7210cc1cf6a284f3a Author: Richard Biene

[Bug debug/104337] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE when compiling with optimize attribute and always_inline at -m32 -g3 -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104337 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:24ec11aec20fd621a74c4a3bc7d61aaddf8ef8c8 commit r11-9657-g24ec11aec20fd621a74c4a3bc7d61aaddf8ef8c8 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/104402] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE on valid code caused by not lowering complex int compare inside a COND_EXPR

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104402 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cfc310faea6c2ff32b451f8b4842783ecece761c commit r11-9658-gcfc310faea6c2ff32b451f8b4842783ecece761c Author: Richard Biener

[Bug target/104453] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in handled_component_p with truncated input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104453 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:070bb453f1c0fa47a62a7b0cdeed397e889600f6 commit r11-9659-g070bb453f1c0fa47a62a7b0cdeed397e889600f6 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug target/104511] [10/11 Regression] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.cc:4010 with __builtin_convertvector() at -O

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104511 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d261855943584e25c43fc59dfbc75e50e24a66b8 commit r11-9660-gd261855943584e25c43fc59dfbc75e50e24a66b8 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/104786] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with VLA type and "=X" constraint on inline-asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104786 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4ac43fad3dff78e6e16e4d6ff36e77428332e4d commit r11-9661-gc4ac43fad3dff78e6e16e4d6ff36e77428332e4d Author: Richard Biener

[Bug ada/104861] s-oscons.ads should use target_noncanonical

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104861 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a1150d1524aeda3381b2171712e1a6611d441d6 commit r11-9662-g6a1150d1524aeda3381b2171712e1a6611d441d6 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/103641] [11 regression] Severe compile time regression in SLP vectorize step

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103641 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56574 dagelf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coenraad at wish dot org.za --- Comment #13 fro

[Bug tree-optimization/103536] Suboptimal codegen for && and || combination.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103536 dagelf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coenraad at wish dot org.za --- Comment #2 fro

[Bug gcov-profile/85163] [GCOV] A call statement with '==' , '||', and '&&' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85163 dagelf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coenraad at wish dot org.za --- Comment #5 from

[Bug gcov-profile/85201] [GCOV] A statement with two && operators and a comma operator in the for loop body is wrongly marked in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85201 dagelf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coenraad at wish dot org.za --- Comment #10 fro

[Bug gcov-profile/85276] [GCOV] A comparative statement with '=', '&&' , '||', and '==' operators is wrongly marked as executed twice in gcov

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85276 dagelf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||coenraad at wish dot org.za --- Comment #8 from

gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56574 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to dagelf from comment #13) > && does not mean logical AND in gcc, it's a label. > > You should just be using & Huh? I think you are confused. && for an unary operator is taking the address of a

[Bug c/104948] New: When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 Bug ID: 104948 Summary: When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #1 from dagelf --- To boot, most other C compilers interpret `&&` as a logical AND.

[Bug fortran/104949] New: [OpenMP] omp target: firstprivate of allocatable array – only descriptor firstprivatized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104949 Bug ID: 104949 Summary: [OpenMP] omp target: firstprivate of allocatable array – only descriptor firstprivatized Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/104734] -isystem hides -Woverloaded-virtual warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104734 --- Comment #5 from Albert Astals Cid --- Ping I provided the requested information, can someone move this out of WAITING state?

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 52633 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52633&action=edit gcc12-pr103984.patch

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/104950] New: GCC does not emit branchless code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 Bug ID: 104950 Summary: GCC does not emit branchless code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimizat

[Bug target/104946] [12 regression] Suboptimal gimple foding for blendvpd under sse4.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104946 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:570d5bff9af537265a3e0935140786e5fdf51de1 commit r12-7662-g570d5bff9af537265a3e0935140786e5fdf51de1 Author: liuhongt Date: Wed Mar

[Bug middle-end/103984] [12 regression] Possible maybe-uninitialized false positive on shaderc-2021.0 since r12-6329-g4f6bc28fc7dd86bd

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103984 --- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek --- Unfortunately the #c15 patch regressed: +FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr80032.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr80032.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr80032.C -st

[Bug target/104946] [12 regression] Suboptimal gimple foding for blendvpd under sse4.1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104946 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #3 from dagelf --- Can you please give me an example of code with the generated machine code where it actually works as a logical AND? Because I've tried several versions, and under no circumstances did it function as a binary oper

[Bug rtl-optimization/104950] GCC does not emit branchless code for load next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to dagelf from comment #3) > Can you please give me an example of code with the generated machine code > where it actually works as a logical AND? > > Because I've tried several versions, and und

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to dagelf from comment #3) > > Can you please give me an example of code with the generated machine code > > where it actually works as a logical AND?

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to dagelf from comment #3) > Can you please give me an example of code with the generated machine code > where it actually works as a logical AND? > > Because I've tried several versions, and un

[Bug testsuite/102841] [12 regression] libgomp.oacc-c++/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/host_data-7.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102841 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Thomas Schwinge : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab46fc7c3bf01337ea4554f08f4f6b0be8173557 commit r12-7663-gab46fc7c3bf01337ea4554f08f4f6b0be8173557 Author: Thomas Schwinge Date:

[Bug rtl-optimization/104950] GCC does not emit branchless code for load next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Confirmed, reduced testcase: > struct Node{ > int i, l,r; > }; > int eval(int t, struct Node *a) { > return t == 0 ? a->r : a->l; > } > > Note on aarc

[Bug testsuite/102841] [12 regression] libgomp.oacc-c++/../libgomp.oacc-c-c++-common/host_data-7.c FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102841 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/104950] GCC does not emit branchless code for load next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Ah, on aarch64 we get cmp w0, 0 add x0, x1, 4 cselx0, x0, x1, eq ldr w0, [x0] so we do not load from the possibly trapping mem. With the testcase I provide

[Bug target/100784] [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault, contains_struct_check(tree_node*, tree_node_structure_enum, char const*, int, char const*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100784 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e0ae287e2c199a22d3f0c2de40a4869a44c8b795 commit r10-10499-ge0ae287e2c199a22d3f0c2de40a4869a44c8b795 Author: Richard Biene

[Bug target/104511] [10 Regression] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.cc:4010 with __builtin_convertvector() at -O

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104511 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2cd7683cdbccf5d3fce58aa279e77c8baa48e4bd commit r10-10500-g2cd7683cdbccf5d3fce58aa279e77c8baa48e4bd Author: Richard Biene

[Bug target/104453] [9/10 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in handled_component_p with truncated input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104453 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:807bfd4357609655c81d0a3282b699b10e7aeb5a commit r10-10501-g807bfd4357609655c81d0a3282b699b10e7aeb5a Author: Richard Biene

[Bug target/100784] [10 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault, contains_struct_check(tree_node*, tree_node_structure_enum, char const*, int, char const*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100784 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.1 Known to fail|

[Bug target/104511] [10 Regression] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.cc:4010 with __builtin_convertvector() at -O

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104511 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.1 Known to fail|10.3.1

[Bug rtl-optimization/104950] GCC does not emit branchless code for load next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 Hongtao.liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||crazylht at gmail dot com --- Comment #4

[Bug rtl-optimization/104950] GCC does not emit branchless code for load next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- Until you clear up your confusion, please stop leaving completely incorrect comments all over bugzilla.

[Bug libstdc++/104945] std::hash ignores the top 32 bits when size_t is 32 bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104945 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-03-16 Keywords|

[Bug libstdc++/90233] std::hash()(INFINITY) == std::hash()(0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90233 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/104951] New: avx512fintrin.h(9146): error: identifier "__builtin_ia32_rndscaless_round" is undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104951 Bug ID: 104951 Summary: avx512fintrin.h(9146): error: identifier "__builtin_ia32_rndscaless_round" is undefined Product: gcc Version: 9.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/90370] Does 0 correspond to a POSIX errno value for std::system_category?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90370 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug libstdc++/102425] std::error_code() does not compare equal to std::error_condition()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102425 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c++/104951] avx512fintrin.h(9146): error: identifier "__builtin_ia32_rndscaless_round" is undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104951 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/103743] PPC: Inefficient equality compare for large 64-bit constants having only 16-bit relevant bits in high part

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103743 --- Comment #5 from Jiu Fu Guo --- It would be also ok for the constant that only has 16bits in the middle: e.g. 0x09876000ULL, we can rotate the constant to 0x9876.

[Bug c++/104951] avx512fintrin.h(9146): error: identifier "__builtin_ia32_rndscaless_round" is undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104951 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- https://github.com/scale-snu/ckks-gpu-core/issues/1 https://stackoverflow.com/questions/60824242/suddenly-getting-builtin-ia32-sqrtsd-round-is-undefined-with-nvcc-gcc I think this is a bug in PaddlePaddle

[Bug libstdc++/90388] Disabled hash specialization should not be invocable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90388 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Status|NEW

[Bug c++/104734] -isystem hides -Woverloaded-virtual warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104734 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED Ever confirmed|1

[Bug target/104453] [9/10 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in handled_component_p with truncated input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104453 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:48fde80dea1fd59db34d0723427c41d0fb1ad951 commit r9-9985-g48fde80dea1fd59db34d0723427c41d0fb1ad951 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug target/104453] [9/10 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in handled_component_p with truncated input

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104453 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/104950] GCC does not emit branchless code for load next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104950 --- Comment #6 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #4) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > > > Ah, on aarch64 we get > > > > > > cmp w0, 0 > > >

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/104910] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: internal consistency failure (error: invalid rtl sharing found in the insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104910 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:952155629ca1a4dfe7c7b26e53d118a9b853ed4a commit r12-7666-g952155629ca1a4dfe7c7b26e53d118a9b853ed4a Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: W

[Bug target/104910] [10/11 Regression] ICE: internal consistency failure (error: invalid rtl sharing found in the insn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104910 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE: |[10/11 Regression] ICE:

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > Wouldn't at least now simply disabling the "optimization" in the last sink > pass instance be safer? I don't see how that's easily done. Not sinking any loads

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Ok. Though, perhaps indeed trying to detect what phiopt optimizes and not sinking that case would be long term best, so that we don't do the ping pong.

[Bug tree-optimization/104942] [12 Regression] ICE in size_for_offset, at tree-object-size.cc:352 since r12-6482-g06bc1b0c539e3a60

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104942 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Siddhesh Poyarekar : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:818e305ea692ebc6578fb40881887d45382f876b commit r12-7667-g818e305ea692ebc6578fb40881887d45382f876b Author: Siddhesh Poyarekar

[Bug tree-optimization/104942] [12 Regression] ICE in size_for_offset, at tree-object-size.cc:352 since r12-6482-g06bc1b0c539e3a60

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104942 Siddhesh Poyarekar changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/94675] [9/10/11/12 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O2 since r9-1948

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675 --- Comment #21 from Xavier --- The problem still happens with gcc 9.4.0 but it appears to be fixed with gcc 10.

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #8 from dagelf --- Makes perfect sense now. && is "logical" in that it can only produce a bool, which in C is an int and anything except 0 or 1 is evaluated to false at compile time. There was a time when 'logical' and 'bitwise' we

[Bug target/104952] New: [nvptx][OpenMP] wrong code with OR / AND reduction ('reduction(||:' and '&&') with SIMT

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104952 Bug ID: 104952 Summary: [nvptx][OpenMP] wrong code with OR / AND reduction ('reduction(||:' and '&&') with SIMT Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/104765] Expression statement with a return in a lambda-parameter-default causes segfault when called in a different function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104765 --- Comment #6 from Aaron Ballman --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #4) > My preference: prohibit any use of ({}) in default arguments. That's my preference as well assuming it doesn't break a significant amount of code (which I have

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96780 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e55c5e24b97ad8ddc44588da18e894c139e02c0a commit r12-7668-ge55c5e24b97ad8ddc44588da18e894c139e02c0a Author: Patrick Palka Date: W

[Bug tree-optimization/104931] wrong-code with number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104931 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- The bug was made latent by g:51d464b608b38b9e2007948d10b1e0f1dcec142c which ensured that /* If the loop exits immediately, there is nothing to do. */ tree tem = fold_binary (code, boolean_type_node, i

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to dagelf from comment #8) > Makes perfect sense now. && is "logical" in that it can only produce a bool, > which in C is an int and anything except 0 or 1 is evaluated to false at > compile time

[Bug d/104953] New: [12 regression] Several gdc and libphobos tests FAIL on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104953 Bug ID: 104953 Summary: [12 regression] Several gdc and libphobos tests FAIL on Solaris Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug d/104953] [12 regression] Several gdc and libphobos tests FAIL on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104953 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 --- Comment #8 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > Ok. Though, perhaps indeed trying to detect what phiopt optimizes and not > sinking that case would be long term best, so that we don't do the ping pong. Or,

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #11 from Andreas Schwab --- The size of bool is target dependent (though only Darwin/ppc overrides it).

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f6fb661ea8ac7e17c6924719de6219f002c4efef commit r12-7670-gf6fb661ea8ac7e17c6924719de6219f002c4efef Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug rtl-optimization/102008] [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/68274] __builtin_unreachable pessimizes code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68274 Bug 68274 depends on bug 102008, which changed state. Bug 102008 Summary: [12 Regression] no cmov generated for loads next to each other https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102008 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug analyzer/104954] New: Analyzer takes a very long time on Linux kernel drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/calcs/dce_calcs.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954 Bug ID: 104954 Summary: Analyzer takes a very long time on Linux kernel drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/calcs/dce_calcs.c Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/104954] Analyzer takes a very long time on Linux kernel drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/calcs/dce_calcs.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Does not enabling sanitizer improve things?

[Bug c/104948] When '&&' present in a comparison, a warning should be generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104948 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, to be more precise: && produces an int (not a _Bool / bool) with value 0 or 1. _Bool (a.k.a bool) is a distinct type, which might be larger or smaller than int (the only actual requirement is "larg

[Bug analyzer/104954] Analyzer takes a very long time on Linux kernel drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/calcs/dce_calcs.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||104943 --- Comment #2 from David Malcol

[Bug c++/104944] incorrect alignas(void) accepted (with warning if templated)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104944 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-03-16 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug tree-optimization/104931] wrong-code with number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104931 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > The bug was made latent by g:51d464b608b38b9e2007948d10b1e0f1dcec142c which > ensured that > > /* If the loop exits immediately, there is nothing to do. */

[Bug c++/104944] [9/10/11/12 Regression] incorrect alignas(void) accepted (with warning if templated)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104944 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|incorrect alignas(void) |[9/10/11/12 Regression]

[Bug analyzer/104954] Analyzer takes a very long time on Linux kernel drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/calcs/dce_calcs.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- I'm also seeing states with dozens of bindings for touched regions for __UNIQUE_ID_ddebugN for various N: clusters within :: {, r

[Bug tree-optimization/104931] [9/10/11 Regression] wrong-code with number_of_iterations_lt_to_ne

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104931 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|wrong-code with |[9/10/11 Regression]

[Bug analyzer/104954] Analyzer takes a very long time on Linux kernel drivers/gpu/drm/amd/display/dc/calcs/dce_calcs.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104954 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Created attachment 52634 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52634&action=edit Gzipped preprocessed source, unreduced

[Bug tree-optimization/94675] [9/10/11/12 regression] -Warray-bounds false positive with -O2 since r9-1948

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94675 --- Comment #22 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Xavier from comment #21) > The problem still happens with gcc 9.4.0 but it appears to be fixed with gcc > 10. I suppose that's with the original full testcase, I still see the diagnostic on th

  1   2   >