[Bug tree-optimization/107591] range-op{,-float}.cc for x * x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107591 --- Comment #19 from Pilar Latiesa --- The testcase: #include struct TVec { double x, y, z; }; double dot(TVec const &u, TVec const &v) { return u.x * v.x + u.y * v.y + u.y * v.y + u.z * v.z; } double mag(TVec const &u

[Bug tree-optimization/109417] New: ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

/gcc-trunk --enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 13.0.1 20230405 (experimental) [master r13-7008-gfdc5abbdcfb] (GCC) [606] % [606] % gcctk -O2 small.c; ./a.out [607

[Bug ipa/109408] [13 Regression] ICE in decide_about_value, at ipa-cp.cc:6154

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109408 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/109408] [13 Regression] ICE in decide_about_value, at ipa-cp.cc:6154

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109408 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ipa/109303] [13 Regression] ICE in push_agg_values_from_plats, at ipa-cp.cc:1458 since r13-3358-ge0403e95689af7d5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303 --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška --- *** Bug 109408 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- *** Bug 109408 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug ipa/109303] [13 Regression] ICE in push_agg_values_from_plats, at ipa-cp.cc:1458 since r13-3358-ge0403e95689af7d5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109303 --- Comment #12 from Martin Liška --- *** Bug 109408 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- *** Bug 109408 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/109356] Enhancement idea to provide clearer missing brace line number

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109356 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/109417] [13 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109417 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-04-05 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/109154] [13 regression] jump threading de-optimizes nested floating point comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154 --- Comment #42 from Tamar Christina --- Thanks for all the work so far folks! Just to clarify the current state, it looks like the first reduced testcase is now correct. But the larger example as in c26 is still suboptimal, but slightly bette

[Bug libstdc++/109405] Should class final decoration result in larger unique_ptr with deleter ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109405 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/109154] [13 regression] jump threading de-optimizes nested floating point comparisons

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 --- Comment #43 from kt

[Bug libstdc++/109405] Should class final decoration result in larger unique_ptr with deleter ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109405 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's possible to fix for the --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace build which does not promise a backwards compatible ABI. I didn't do that yet, I *think* it was because support for [[no_unique_address

[Bug libstdc++/109418] New: -Werror=maybe-uninitialized triggered by /usr/include/c++/12.2.1/bits/random.tcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109418 Bug ID: 109418 Summary: -Werror=maybe-uninitialized triggered by /usr/include/c++/12.2.1/bits/random.tcc Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug libstdc++/109418] -Werror=maybe-uninitialized triggered by /usr/include/c++/12.2.1/bits/random.tcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109418 --- Comment #1 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Gareth Anthony Hulse from comment #0) > Created attachment 54812 [details] > Output of `make -B 2> /tmp/errors.txt` > > `/usr/include/c++/12.2.1/bits/random.tcc` has variables that are possibly > u

[Bug libstdc++/109418] -Werror=maybe-uninitialized triggered by /usr/include/c++/12.2.1/bits/random.tcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109418 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|easyhack| CC|

[Bug c++/109419] New: [modules] ICE: Segmentation fault when using -fmodules-ts and -g

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109419 Bug ID: 109419 Summary: [modules] ICE: Segmentation fault when using -fmodules-ts and -g Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/109415] No predefined macros to differentiate between ARM Cortex-M33 and Cortex-M55

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415 --- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw --- The __ARM_ARCH_...__ macros turned out to be a very bad design decision. Each new architecture needs a new macro that older compilers (and software) will not know about. The ACLE approach is far more sen

[Bug target/109415] No predefined macros to differentiate between ARM Cortex-M33 and Cortex-M55

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109415 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/99312] __ARM_ARCH is not implemented correctly when compiled with -march=armv8.1-a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99312 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Vedant.VijayYevale@infineon

[Bug target/99312] __ARM_ARCH is not implemented correctly when compiled with -march=armv8.1-a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99312 --- Comment #8 from Richard Earnshaw --- Applies to both AArch64 and Arm back-ends.

[Bug fortran/104272] finalizer gets called during allocate

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104272 --- Comment #5 from Kai Germaschewski --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #4) > Created attachment 54811 [details] > Fix for this PR > > I was sufficiently intrigued by this bug that I decided that I would look > into it right away. After

[Bug c++/109420] New: [13 Regression] lookup of 'struct T::X' at instantiation time does not ignore non-type bindings of 'X'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109420 Bug ID: 109420 Summary: [13 Regression] lookup of 'struct T::X' at instantiation time does not ignore non-type bindings of 'X' Product: gcc Version: 13.0

[Bug c++/109420] [13 Regression] lookup of 'struct T::X' at instantiation time does not ignore non-type bindings of 'X'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109420 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Known to fail|

[Bug c++/109420] [13 Regression] lookup of 'struct T::X' at instantiation time does not ignore non-type bindings of 'X'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109420 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Prio

[Bug target/109040] [13 Regression] wrong code with v16hi compare & mask on riscv64 at -O2 since r13-4907-g2e886eef7f2b5a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109040 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- *** Bug 109040 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug ipa/108959] [13 Regression] ice in modify_assignment, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:1905 since r13-5681-ge8109bd87766be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108959 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f0f372fab3e70622a4ea6fe4073991e1bb506e4e commit r13-7011-gf0f372fab3e70622a4ea6fe4073991e1bb506e4e Author: Martin Jambor Date: W

[Bug ipa/108959] [13 Regression] ice in modify_assignment, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:1905 since r13-5681-ge8109bd87766be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108959 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/109374] FAIL: gnat.dg/div_zero.adb execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by John David Anglin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ddb0f66e6c1e846bdc217075c9a770bfd0b01970 commit r13-7012-gddb0f66e6c1e846bdc217075c9a770bfd0b01970 Author: John David Anglin D

[Bug target/109374] FAIL: gnat.dg/div_zero.adb execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug target/109374] FAIL: gnat.dg/div_zero.adb execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- Nice work!

[Bug target/109374] FAIL: gnat.dg/div_zero.adb execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109374 --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2023-04-05 10:56 a.m., ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Nice work! Your comments were accurate and very helpful. Thanks, dave

[Bug middle-end/108892] [13 Regression] unable to generate reloads for at -Og on riscv64 since r13-4907

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108892 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4a45f5d6a9b53f7f5446dee47e25b07d413bb7eb commit r13-7013-g4a45f5d6a9b53f7f5446dee47e25b07d413bb7eb Author: Jeff Law Date: Wed Apr 5 0

[Bug middle-end/108892] [13 Regression] unable to generate reloads for at -Og on riscv64 since r13-4907

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108892 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/98678] 30_threads/future/members/poll.cc execution test FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98678 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug c++/109421] New: Compilation takes a long time for struct that contains a large default-initialized array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109421 Bug ID: 109421 Summary: Compilation takes a long time for struct that contains a large default-initialized array Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/109421] Compilation takes a long time for struct that contains a large default-initialized array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109421 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Looks to be fixed with GCC 12.1.0 .

[Bug c++/92385] extremely long and memory intensive compilation for brace construction of array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92385 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ejakobs at boerboeltrading dot com ---

[Bug c++/109421] Compilation takes a long time for struct that contains a large default-initialized array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109421 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/109422] New: wrong depth used for template parameter mangling for lambdas in function signatures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109422 Bug ID: 109422 Summary: wrong depth used for template parameter mangling for lambdas in function signatures Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug c++/109422] wrong depth used for template parameter mangling for lambdas in function signatures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109422 --- Comment #1 from Richard Smith --- > This should instead be mangled as T_TL__ Sorry, that's wrong; the rule we ended up with would mangle this as T_TL0__.

[Bug tree-optimization/109417] [13 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault since r13-6945

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109417 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Priority|P3

[Bug modula2/109423] New: cc1gm2 ICE if an INCL or EXCL is performced on an unknown set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109423 Bug ID: 109423 Summary: cc1gm2 ICE if an INCL or EXCL is performced on an unknown set Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/88508] std::bad_cast in std::basic_ostringstream.oss.fill()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88508 Frank Heckenbach changed: What|Removed |Added CC||f.heckenb...@fh-soft.de --- Comment #

[Bug target/108947] [13 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-forward-propagate and vector compare on riscv64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108947 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug target/103100] [11/12/13 Regression] unaligned access generated with memset or {} and -O2 -mstrict-align

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma | |il/gcc-patches/2023

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #40185|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug tree-optimization/101024] Missed min expression at phiopt1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101024 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Part of this is in the patch set in bug 25290 comment # 27 patch set. Mostly the "c ? min/max : min/max" part, I still need to implement the "c ? min : d" part.

[Bug tree-optimization/109424] New: ~

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109424 Bug ID: 109424 Summary: ~ Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement Priority: P3 Component: t

[Bug tree-optimization/109424] ~((x > y) ? x : y) produces two not instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109424 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|~ |~((x > y) ? x : y) produces

[Bug tree-optimization/109424] ~((x > y) ? x : y) produces two not instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109424 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/109425] New: mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109425 Bug ID: 109425 Summary: mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug tree-optimization/109417] [13 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: Segmentation fault since r13-6945

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109417 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Started with r13-6945-g429a7a88438cc80e I've run into this before. _54 = _22 is processed, and we cache _22 as a dependency fo _54. then we do some propagat

[Bug c++/109425] mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109425 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/107853] [10/11/12 Regression] variadic template with a variadic template friend with a requires of fold expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107853 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||h2+bugs at fsfe dot org --- Comment #8

[Bug fortran/104312] ICE with -ff2c in fold_convert_loc, at fold-const.cc:2451

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104312 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug modula2/109423] cc1gm2 ICE if an INCL or EXCL is performced on an unknown set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109423 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1bd13193fab77a19da323974aec876f0fc1817ee commit r13-7019-g1bd13193fab77a19da323974aec876f0fc1817ee Author: Gaius Mulley Date: Wed

[Bug modula2/109423] cc1gm2 ICE if an INCL or EXCL is performced on an unknown set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109423 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug modula2/109423] cc1gm2 ICE if an INCL or EXCL is performced on an unknown set

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109423 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/70243] PowerPC V4SFmode should not use Altivec instructions on VSX systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70243 Chip Kerchner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chip.kerchner at ibm dot com --- Comment

[Bug target/70243] PowerPC V4SFmode should not use Altivec instructions on VSX systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70243 --- Comment #4 from Chip Kerchner --- It shows up as a rounding difference on BE machines.

[Bug target/109399] RISC-V: RVV VSETVL PASS backward demand fusiton bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109399 JuzheZhong changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/70243] PowerPC V4SFmode should not use Altivec instructions on VSX systems

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70243 --- Comment #5 from Michael Meissner --- Created attachment 54814 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54814&action=edit Test case This is test case that shows the generation of fmaddfp and fnmsubfp.

[Bug c++/109425] mismatched argument pack lengths while expanding

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109425 --- Comment #2 from Hannes Hauswedell --- Thanks for the quick reply, and nice that it is already fixed for 13! I assume this will not be backported? It wouldn't be a huge problem, because it is possible to workaround with non-friend operators.

[Bug c++/109426] New: Gcc runs into Infinite loop, when resolving templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109426 Bug ID: 109426 Summary: Gcc runs into Infinite loop, when resolving templates Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug c++/109426] Gcc runs into Infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109426 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Gcc runs into Infinite |Gcc runs into Infinite loop

[Bug c/109426] Gcc runs into Infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109426 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |c --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --

[Bug testsuite/108899] [13 Regression] ERROR: can't rename to "saved-unsupported": command already exists on i386

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108899 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:673a2a6445a79bcce5ba433d6bbec4b99a1bc7c6 commit r13-7021-g673a2a6445a79bcce5ba433d6bbec4b99a1bc7c6 Author: Alexandre Oliva Date

[Bug fortran/109358] Wrong formatting with T-descriptor during stream output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/109384] [13 Regression] unquoted keyword 'float' in format [-Werror=format-diag]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109384 --- Comment #8 from jiawei --- Thank you for this fix, I neglected to confirm the format, sorry for that.

[Bug tree-optimization/109427] New: Wrong param description in param.opt

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109427 Bug ID: 109427 Summary: Wrong param description in param.opt Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-opt

[Bug fortran/109358] Wrong formatting with T-descriptor during stream output

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109358 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug tree-optimization/109427] param=vect-induction-float= has a typo for IntegerRange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109427 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/109427] param=vect-induction-float= has a typo for IntegerRange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109427 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0f816116356fec32e3a3a2fb5af790a0438c5da4 commit r13-7022-g0f816116356fec32e3a3a2fb5af790a0438c5da4 Author: Andrew Pinski Date: We

[Bug tree-optimization/109427] param=vect-induction-float= has a typo for IntegerRange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109427 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c5d6ed689d24418a3bc0647ab34a7ab017d7030 commit r12-9388-g6c5d6ed689d24418a3bc0647ab34a7ab017d7030 Author: Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/109427] param=vect-induction-float= has a typo for IntegerRange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109427 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug lto/109428] New: GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109428 Bug ID: 109428 Summary: GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code. Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c/109426] Gcc runs into Infinite loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109426 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug other/105404] new version of zlib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105404 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||chluo at cse dot cuhk.edu.hk --- Commen

[Bug lto/109428] GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109428 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug other/105404] new version of zlib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105404 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- Note GCC does not call inflateGetHeader so it is not affected by CVE-2022-37434.

[Bug lto/109428] GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109428 chluo at cse dot cuhk.edu.hk changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RE

[Bug lto/109428] GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109428 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug other/105404] new version of zlib

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105404 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 109428 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c/85696] OpenMP with variably modified and default(none) won't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696 zhonghao at pku dot org.cn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn -

[Bug lto/109428] GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109428 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to chluo from comment #2) > Thank you for your quick update! The commit might just list one approach to > exploit the bug in **inflate()** function. I am not sure if there are other > ways to reach

[Bug lto/109428] GCC did not fix CVE-2022-37434, a heap overflow bug introduced by its dependency zlib code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109428 --- Comment #5 from chluo at cse dot cuhk.edu.hk --- OK, also thanks for the kind explanations!

[Bug c/63495] struct __attribute__ ((aligned (8))) broken on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63495 zhonghao at pku dot org.cn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zhonghao at pku dot org.cn -

[Bug c/85696] OpenMP with variably modified and default(none) won't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85696 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- If you are trying to compile C code which isn't valid C++ by C++, then such an error is expected.