[Bug fortran/107444] ICE on character, value, optional dummy argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107444 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug libstdc++/107712] std::format does not work for clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107712 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2f5c071860ba3f8ef67d0b9d8291a73766ce0a44 commit r13-4109-g2f5c071860ba3f8ef67d0b9d8291a73766ce0a44 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/107720] [13 regression] New C++ library test cases (and many others) in r13-3936-g1d9454aba615ea fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107720 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:dbdce6adb748b95be219f2f5fb97f844a0f9b840 commit r13-4111-gdbdce6adb748b95be219f2f5fb97f844a0f9b840 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/107726] New: Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107726 Bug ID: 107726 Summary: Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__ Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/107726] Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107726 --- Comment #1 from cqwrteur --- #if __has_cpp_attribute(__gnu__::__target__) && defined(__SSE2__) && !defined(__AVX2__) [[__gnu__::__target__("default")]] #elif __has_cpp_attribute(__gnu__::__flatten__) [[__gnu__::__flatten__]] #endif inline vo

[Bug libstdc++/107712] std::format does not work for clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107712 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/107725] Spurious warning: use of uninitialized value with std::any

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107725 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||97110 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm

[Bug analyzer/107725] Spurious warning: use of uninitialized value with std::any

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107725 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/107726] Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107726 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/107726] Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107726 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-w64-mingw32, |x86_64-linux-gnu |x86

[Bug analyzer/107711] ICE with -fanalyzer with -Wunused-macros since r13-4073-gd8aba860b34203

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107711 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|internal compiler error:|ICE with -fanalyzer with

[Bug fortran/107707] ICE in gfc_compare_actual_formal, at fortran/interface.cc:3284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug target/107726] Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107726 --- Comment #4 from cqwrteur --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Also please file an different issue for the non-ifunc case since it is a new > feature. https://godbolt.org/z/z5cexGEMK

[Bug target/107727] New: error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107727 Bug ID: 107727 Summary: error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target) Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug target/107727] error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107727 --- Comment #1 from cqwrteur --- Here is how clang deals with it on x86_64-windows-gnu (it is how clang calls x86_64-w64-mingw32) https://godbolt.org/z/z5cexGEMK

[Bug fortran/107707] ICE in gfc_compare_actual_formal, at fortran/interface.cc:3284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 09:16:17PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 > > anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: > >What|Removed

[Bug target/107727] error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107727 --- Comment #2 from cqwrteur --- BTW. how could i detect this feature being available? I think #if __has_cpp_attribute(__gnu__::__target__) #endif should not be true on targets that do not support it.

[Bug rtl-optimization/107455] Suboptimal codegen for some branch-on-zero cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107455 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/106649] [C++23] P2448 - Relaxing some constexpr restrictions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106649 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c85f8dbb173f45053f6d8849d27adc98d9668769 commit r13-4112-gc85f8dbb173f45053f6d8849d27adc98d9668769 Author: Marek Polacek Date: We

[Bug c++/106649] [C++23] P2448 - Relaxing some constexpr restrictions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106649 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/98940] Implement C++23 language features

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98940 Bug 98940 depends on bug 106649, which changed state. Bug 106649 Summary: [C++23] P2448 - Relaxing some constexpr restrictions https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106649 What|Removed |Added

[Bug bootstrap/107728] New: with -O0, libgcc in the first stage compiler has reference to libc functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107728 Bug ID: 107728 Summary: with -O0, libgcc in the first stage compiler has reference to libc functions Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/107726] Multiple bugs related to __gnu__::__target__

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107726 --- Comment #5 from cqwrteur --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > We have tests for multiversioning and they are passing with BFD ld. > > Also multiversioning requires ifunc support which is not implemented for > Windows (I don't k

[Bug analyzer/107725] Spurious warning: use of uninitialized value with std::any

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107725 --- Comment #3 from Chris Uzdavinis --- Ah, sorry I didn't realize that. Its use was suggested by Jason Turner in his most recent C++ Weekly so I started to give it a try. Perhaps there will be an influx of such premature reports since it was

[Bug target/107727] error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107727 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- What they do is basically have the resolver always called: callq __cpu_indicator_init movl__cpu_model+12(%rip), %eax andl$1024, %eax # imm = 0x400

[Bug middle-end/107727] error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107727 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Build|x86_64-linux-gnu

[Bug middle-end/107727] error: multiversioning needs 'ifunc' which is not supported on this target (x86_64-w64-mingw32 target)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107727 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to cqwrteur from comment #2) > BTW. how could i detect this feature being available? I think > > #if __has_cpp_attribute(__gnu__::__target__) > > #endif > > should not be true on targets that do

[Bug fortran/107707] ICE in gfc_compare_actual_formal, at fortran/interface.cc:3284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdd784fc48a283d54f5f1e3cc2a0668c14dd3bee commit r13-4113-gbdd784fc48a283d54f5f1e3cc2a0668c14dd3bee Author: Steve Kargl Date: Wed

[Bug bootstrap/107728] with -O0, libgcc in the first stage compiler has reference to libc functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107728 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |MOVED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/107148] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in bot_manip, at cp/tree.cc:3252

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107148 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug fortran/107707] ICE in gfc_compare_actual_formal, at fortran/interface.cc:3284

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107707 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug bootstrap/107728] with -O0, libgcc in the first stage compiler has reference to libc functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107728 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Move over, the functions are not optimized out at -O2 but rather they don't get pulled in glibc building because another function is referenced. Either libgcc should be built with -fdata-sections -ffunction

[Bug libstdc++/107712] std::format does not work for clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107712 --- Comment #3 from cqwrteur --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Should be fixed now. Question about toupper or any functions in ctype.h These functions are not thread-safe and they do incur a very high cost due to calling into

[Bug analyzer/107725] Spurious warning: use of uninitialized value with std::any

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107725 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- Aha thanks: presumably "Ep 350 - The Right Way to Write C++ Code in 2022"? I'm watching it now.

[Bug c++/107729] New: unhelpful handling for PMF on Itanium ABI for inline asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107729 Bug ID: 107729 Summary: unhelpful handling for PMF on Itanium ABI for inline asm Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/107729] unhelpful handling for PMF on Itanium ABI for inline asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107729 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- :6:1: warning: unsupported size for integer register

[Bug c++/107729] unhelpful handling for PMF on Itanium ABI for inline asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107729 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > :6:1: warning: unsupported size for integer register I get that when I use: #%0 %1

[Bug c++/107729] unhelpful handling for PMF on Itanium ABI for inline asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107729 --- Comment #3 from Saleem Abdulrasool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > :6:1: warning: unsupported size for integer register > > I get that when I use: > #%0 %1 This totally make

[Bug c++/107729] unhelpful handling for PMF on Itanium ABI for inline asm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107729 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/107711] [13 Regression] ICE with "-fanalyzer -Wunused-macros" since r13-4073-gd8aba860b34203

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107711 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6e4962810fe5de95b807d1ac675df45a725e31a2 commit r13-4114-g6e4962810fe5de95b807d1ac675df45a725e31a2 Author: David Malcolm Date: W

[Bug bootstrap/107728] with -O0, libgcc in the first stage compiler has reference to libc functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107728 --- Comment #3 from Thomas Petazzoni --- Thanks for the super quick feedback. Could you clarify "Move over, the functions are not optimized out at -O2 but rather they don't get pulled in glibc building because another function is referenced." ?

[Bug c++/105278] no warning for precise literals compared with floats

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Note I think GCC's -Wfloat-equal is more reasonible than Clang's -Wliteral-range really. The reason is because even if something can be represented exactly in floating point (e.g. 3.0 or even 0.0), you could

[Bug c++/105278] -Wliteral-range vs -Wfloat-equal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105278 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|no warning for precise |-Wliteral-range vs |l

[Bug analyzer/107711] [13 Regression] ICE with "-fanalyzer -Wunused-macros" since r13-4073-gd8aba860b34203

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107711 --- Comment #9 from David Malcolm --- It's a use-after-free of the ident_hash hash_table. Testing a fix...

[Bug fortran/104630] module subroutine not accessible from submodule

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104630 --- Comment #2 from John --- This issue is still in v12.2.0.

[Bug libstdc++/107720] [13 regression] New C++ library test cases (and many others) in r13-3936-g1d9454aba615ea fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107720 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f69a8299c1d95548e1539227fb7b8f5581aeb29b commit r13-4117-gf69a8299c1d95548e1539227fb7b8f5581aeb29b Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/107720] [13 regression] New C++ library test cases (and many others) in r13-3936-g1d9454aba615ea fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107720 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libstdc++/107649] New std::complex specializations are never used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107649 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/107704] [13 Regression] Testsuite regression after recent DCE changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107704 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- ACK. And as I mentioned, the RTL form looks like it ought to be caught by the SH specific code to optimize T reg handling. I don't care enough about the SH to try and debug a missed optimization though.

[Bug c/107730] New: Trivial -Wreturn-type false positive when function marked static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730 Bug ID: 107730 Summary: Trivial -Wreturn-type false positive when function marked static Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/107730] Trivial -Wreturn-type false positive when function marked static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Note that if I drop 'static', the warning goes away. Clang does not warn at all.

[Bug c/107730] Trivial -Wreturn-type false positive when function marked static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/107730] Trivial -Wreturn-type false positive when function marked static

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107730 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- h

[Bug rtl-optimization/90259] ICE: verify_flow_info failed (error: missing REG_EH_REGION note at the end of bb 4)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90259 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Target|powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu|powerpc*-linux-gnu Status|ASSIGN

[Bug analyzer/107711] [13 Regression] ICE with "-fanalyzer -Wunused-macros" since r13-4073-gd8aba860b34203

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107711 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/107731] New: error: invalid 'asm': invalid use of '%c'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 Bug ID: 107731 Summary: error: invalid 'asm': invalid use of '%c' Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 --- Comment #2 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > %c does not mean anything in loongarch. > > The codes are not documented in the documentation for loonarch though but > they currently only documented in loongarch.

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- MIPS nor RISCV does not define a %c either.

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > Interestingly it "worked" with GCC 12.2... I don't see how it could work though. 62ec3b5352b3 (chenglulu 2021-11-27 14:58:21 +0800 4499) default: 62ec3b5352b3

[Bug c++/78655] gcc doesn't exploit the fact that the result of pointer addition can not be nullptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655 --- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655 > > Andrew Macleod changed: > >What|Removed |Add

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 --- Comment #5 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > > Interestingly it "worked" with GCC 12.2... No it does not work. I guess I typed the test command in a wrong SSH session

[Bug middle-end/107679] [13 Regression] ICE in maybe_register_def, at tree-into-ssa.cc:1914

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107679 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 --- Comment #6 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > %c does not mean anything in loongarch. > > The codes are not documented in the documentation for loonarch though but > they currently only documented in loongarch.

[Bug tree-optimization/107686] [12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed (invalid types in nop conversion) with _Decimal64 vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107686 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|13.0| Summary|[12/13 Regression]

[Bug target/107731] loongarch Operand Modifiers are not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107731 --- Comment #7 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > MIPS nor RISCV does not define a %c either. These two architectures can also fail under the following conditions: void test(void) { asm (".long %c0" ::"i"

<    1   2