[Bug c++/110070] New: Code quality regression with for (int i: {1,2,4,6})

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110070 Bug ID: 110070 Summary: Code quality regression with for (int i: {1,2,4,6}) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 Alexander Klepikov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||klepikov.alex+bugs at gmail dot co

[Bug rtl-optimization/110071] New: improve_allocation() routine should consider save/restore cost of callee-save registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110071 Bug ID: 110071 Summary: improve_allocation() routine should consider save/restore cost of callee-save registers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/105617] [12/13/14 Regression] Slp is maybe too aggressive in some/many cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105617 --- Comment #18 from Mason --- Hello Michael_S, As far as I can see, massaging the source helps GCC generate optimal code (in terms of instruction count, not convinced about scheduling). #include typedef unsigned long long u64; void add4i(u64

[Bug fortran/102109] Associate to construct compound object results in incorrect type inferred

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102109 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Assignee|unassigned at gcc do

[Bug fortran/102112] Cannot associate with component of associate target

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102112 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-06-01 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/102190] Syntax error reported in associate construct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102190 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Assignee|unassigned at gcc

[Bug c/110072] New: __gcov_dump cannot generate gcda for so files opened with dlopen when gcc version is later than 5.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110072 Bug ID: 110072 Summary: __gcov_dump cannot generate gcda for so files opened with dlopen when gcc version is later than 5.1.0 Product: gcc Version: 4.8.5 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #49 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #48) > Let's continue discussion we started here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263 > > I've found that my patch catches integer division. In shor

[Bug c++/110070] Code quality regression with for (int i: {1,2,4,6})

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110070 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/110060] Adding optimizer hints to std::vector causes a new -Wstringop-overread false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110060 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- The library change also caused: FAIL: g++.dg/pr104547.C -std=gnu++17 scan-tree-dump-not vrp2 "_M_default_append" So I'm definitely changing std::vector again. I don't know if this is worth keeping open a

[Bug gcov-profile/110072] __gcov_dump cannot generate gcda for so files opened with dlopen when gcc version is later than 5.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110072 --- Comment #1 from 若尘 --- The attachment modify from https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879 To reproduce the issue, need to replace the gcc command in run.sh.

[Bug libstdc++/110050] experimental/simd/pr109822_cast_functions.cc fails on arm after g:668d43502f465d48adbc1fe2956b979f36657e5f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110050 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2fbbaa77c8468ed2bdf2cfa1a5890991e4e98eef commit r14-1463-g2fbbaa77c8468ed2bdf2cfa1a5890991e4e98eef Author: Matthias Kretz Date:

[Bug libstdc++/110050] experimental/simd/pr109822_cast_functions.cc fails on arm after g:668d43502f465d48adbc1fe2956b979f36657e5f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110050 --- Comment #5 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- The issue was an incorrect condition for SIMD support, which wanted to say only single-precision float SIMD is available. It did that by excluding double, failing to also exclude long double.

[Bug middle-end/109505] (t | 15) & svcntb() causes an OOM/ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505 --- Comment #23 from tt_1 --- Are there any plans to backport this fix to the gcc-11 branch as well? Seems it is affected, if you go by the known to fail list.

[Bug tree-optimization/110062] missed vectorization in graphicsmagick

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110062 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- One of the vectorizer issues is related to PR110018.

[Bug ipa/110057] Missed devirtualization opportunities

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057 --- Comment #3 from Ng YongXiang --- I'm giving the example of an array for now, because gcc treatment of the destructor is inconsistent and depends on the length of the array. Clang on the other hand is able to devirtualize the destructor in th

[Bug libstdc++/110060] [14 Regression] Adding optimizer hints to std::vector causes a new -Wstringop-overread false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110060 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||13.1.1 Component|tree-optimi

[Bug libstdc++/22200] numeric_limits::is_modulo is inconsistent with gcc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22200 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #44 from Jonathan

[Bug ipa/110057] Missed devirtualization opportunities

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057 --- Comment #4 from Ng YongXiang --- Would anyone be able to direct me to which portion of the code is responsible for this threshold between len 2 & 3 array? Is this the responsibility of the c++ frontend? or is it still related to the optimize

[Bug target/109812] GraphicsMagick resize is a lot slower in GCC 13.1 vs Clang 16 on Intel Raptor Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109812 --- Comment #15 from Martin Jambor --- Oh, because I missed the -DOPACITY in the second command line. The reason for SRAs creating the repalcement is total scalarization :-/

[Bug other/44574] Avoid use of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- Now that we have C++11 we could use std::stoi, std::stol, std::stoul etc. ... except that they throw exceptions to report out of range values :-( std::from_chars isn't available until C++17.

[Bug tree-optimization/110067] [14 Regression] Wrong code on pixman-0.42.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110067 --- Comment #6 from Sergei Trofimovich --- Adding configure flags for completeness (nothing special): > Configured with: configure flags: --prefix=/<>/gcc-14.0.0 --with-gmp-include=/<>/gmp-6.2.1-dev/include --with-gmp-lib=/<>/gmp-6.2.1/lib --w

[Bug debug/110073] New: [14 regression] btfout.cc format errors break bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110073 Bug ID: 110073 Summary: [14 regression] btfout.cc format errors break bootstrap Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build Severi

[Bug debug/110073] [14 regression] btfout.cc format errors break bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110073 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug sanitizer/110074] New: code bloat with -fprofile-args + -fsanitize=bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110074 Bug ID: 110074 Summary: code bloat with -fprofile-args + -fsanitize=bounds Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug middle-end/109505] (t | 15) & svcntb() causes an OOM/ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|jakub at gcc dot

[Bug c++/110075] New: Bogus -Wdangling-reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110075 Bug ID: 110075 Summary: Bogus -Wdangling-reference Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assig

[Bug target/109989] RISC-V: Missing sign extension with int to float conversion with 64bit soft floats

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109989 Maxim Blinov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maxim.blinov at imgtec dot com --- Comme

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #10 from Jonathan W

[Bug libstdc++/109818] std::trunc() requires a hack after building DJGPP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109818 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55070|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug fortran/110076] New: ICE on mutually recursive derived types.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110076 Bug ID: 110076 Summary: ICE on mutually recursive derived types. Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortr

[Bug libstdc++/109205] vector.resize( v.size() + 100 ) does unnecessary comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109205 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/109205] vector.resize( v.size() + 100 ) does unnecessary comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109205 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > Huh, but that causes a test to FAIL with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG > > FAIL: 23_containers/vector/59829.cc (test for excess errors) > > > /home/jwakely/src/gcc/bui

[Bug libstdc++/110077] New: [14 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check FAILs on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110077 Bug ID: 110077 Summary: [14 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check FAILs on Solaris Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug libstdc++/110077] [14 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check FAILs on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110077 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug libstdc++/110077] [14 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check FAILs on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110077 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug libstdc++/110077] [14 regression] libstdc++-abi/abi_check FAILs on Solaris

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110077 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target|*-*-solaris2.11 |*-*-solaris2.11 |

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eeb92704967875411416b0b9508aa6f49e8192fd commit r14-1464-geeb92704967875411416b0b9508aa6f49e8192fd Author: Jonathan Wakely Date

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #50 from Alexander Klepikov --- > > I've found that my patch catches integer division. In short, it appears to > > work unpredictable. It looks like there's no easy way to catch right shift. > > What do you mean it catches integer d

[Bug target/109812] GraphicsMagick resize is a lot slower in GCC 13.1 vs Clang 16 on Intel Raptor Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109812 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug middle-end/110069] [Perf] -finstrument-functions causes program size to double

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110069 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug c++/110078] New: [13 regression] Excessive memory usage constructing std::variant from a high-index alternative.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110078 Bug ID: 110078 Summary: [13 regression] Excessive memory usage constructing std::variant from a high-index alternative. Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/110078] [13 regression] Excessive memory usage constructing std::variant from a high-index alternative.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110078 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- Already fixed by r14-409-g4b8d0d4d7fd245

[Bug c++/109678] [13/14 Regression] exponential time behavior on std::variant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109678 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||toojays at toojays dot net --- Commen

[Bug c++/110078] [13 regression] Excessive memory usage constructing std::variant from a high-index alternative.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110078 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3b95319b621d95055da182c5fbbccd0d82cb919e commit r13-7398-g3b95319b621d95055da182c5fbbccd0d82cb919e Author: Jonathan Wak

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4466c5ba6e2f1759a2ce461f15fc4e018872a22e commit r12-9672-g4466c5ba6e2f1759a2ce461f15fc4e018872a22e Author: Jonathan Wak

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8538e22f0004565bb95b10741bfd416961030f4c commit r11-10838-g8538e22f0004565bb95b10741bfd416961030f4c Author: Jonathan Wa

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bdd038cc1782b550b434a806ce995fc79f5d1f6b commit r10-11432-gbdd038cc1782b550b434a806ce995fc79f5d1f6b Author: Jonathan Wa

[Bug target/109954] x86-64's -m32 does not conform to documentation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109954 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.5 Resolution|---

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #51 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #50) > > Ooh, my bad! You are absolutely right. A function is inlined and division is > converted to 4 'shar's which at combine pass are catched by 'define_insn > "a

[Bug target/109812] GraphicsMagick resize is a lot slower in GCC 13.1 vs Clang 16 on Intel Raptor Lake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109812 --- Comment #17 from Jan Hubicka --- I was also thinking of DCE. It looks like plausible idea. It may leads to a surprise where you sture same undefined variable to two places and later compare them for equality, but that is undefined anyway.

[Bug middle-end/110052] useless local variable not optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110052 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov --- There are other reasons why it's invalid. For instance, in a multi-threaded program it could introduce a data race on assignment to foo->size inside of 'myrealloc' where the original program might have a

[Bug rtl-optimization/110079] New: ICE with -freorder-blocks-and-partition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079 Bug ID: 110079 Summary: ICE with -freorder-blocks-and-partition Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-opti

[Bug rtl-optimization/110079] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with -freorder-blocks-and-partition and inline-asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.4.0, 12.2.0, 13.1.0,

[Bug rtl-optimization/110079] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE with -freorder-blocks-and-partition and inline-asm goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110079 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-06-01 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug gcov-profile/110074] code bloat with -fprofile-arcs + -fsanitize=bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110074 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|sanitizer |gcov-profile --- Comment #1 from Andrew

[Bug ipa/110057] Missed devirtualization opportunities

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110057 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug gcov-profile/83879] __gcov_dump doesn't work with dlopen-ed libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug gcov-profile/110072] __gcov_dump cannot generate gcda for so files opened with dlopen when gcc version is later than 5.1.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110072 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug gcov-profile/83879] __gcov_dump doesn't work with dlopen-ed libraries

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83879 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 110072 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug gcov-profile/110074] -fprofile-arcs profiles arcs generated by -fsanitize=bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110074 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/87127] External function not recognised from within an associate block

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/87477] [meta-bug] [F03] issues concerning the ASSOCIATE statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87477 Bug 87477 depends on bug 87127, which changed state. Bug 87127 Summary: External function not recognised from within an associate block https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87127 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/110080] New: [13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination at -Os when using __builtin_unreachable since r13-6945-g429a7a88438

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110080 Bug ID: 110080 Summary: [13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination at -Os when using __builtin_unreachable since r13-6945-g429a7a88438 Product: gcc Version:

[Bug tree-optimization/110080] [13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination at -Os when using __builtin_unreachable since r13-6945-g429a7a88438

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110080 --- Comment #1 from Theodoros Theodoridis --- Oops, the first code snippet is wrong in the original post: void foo(void); static unsigned char a = 131; static int *b; static int **c = &b; static void d(int e, unsigned f) { int *g; if (

[Bug fortran/110081] New: Unhelpful error message: "(null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110081 Bug ID: 110081 Summary: Unhelpful error message: "(null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out" Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/109973] [13/14 Regression] Wrong code for AVX2 since 13.1 by combining VPAND and VPTEST since r13-2006-ga56c1641e9d25e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109973 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3635e8c67e13e3da7e1e23a617dd9952218e93e0 commit r14-1466-g3635e8c67e13e3da7e1e23a617dd9952218e93e0 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Thu J

[Bug target/80040] SSE4.1 ptest not always merged

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80040 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3635e8c67e13e3da7e1e23a617dd9952218e93e0 commit r14-1466-g3635e8c67e13e3da7e1e23a617dd9952218e93e0 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Thu Ju

[Bug fortran/100094] Undefined pointers have incorrect rank when using optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100094 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING Blocks|87477

[Bug fortran/102973] possible inconsistency in procptr_assignment handling when matching ASSOCIATE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102973 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas

[Bug libstdc++/110060] [14 Regression] Adding optimizer hints to std::vector causes a new -Wstringop-overread false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110060 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7b255e77a271974479c34d1db3daafc04b920bc commit r14-1470-gb7b255e77a271974479c34d1db3daafc04b920bc Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug middle-end/97048] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overread warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97048 Bug 97048 depends on bug 110060, which changed state. Bug 110060 Summary: [14 Regression] Adding optimizer hints to std::vector causes a new -Wstringop-overread false positive https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110060 What

[Bug libstdc++/110060] [14 Regression] Adding optimizer hints to std::vector causes a new -Wstringop-overread false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110060 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/110051] error: writing 1 byte into a region of size 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110051 --- Comment #3 from Felix --- Yes, you're right, the warning is turned to error. Without this option the compilation runs normally

[Bug testsuite/109951] [14 Regression] libgomp, testsuite: non-native multilib c++ tests fail on Darwin.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109951 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/77704] Data race on std::ctype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77704 Daniel Boles changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dboles.src at gmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug debug/110073] [14 regression] btfout.cc format errors break bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110073 --- Comment #1 from David Faust --- Created attachment 55234 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55234&action=edit alternate proposed patch Thank you for catching this, and for the fix! With the proposed patch on linux x86_64

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #52 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #50) > But maybe there is a way to exclude particular insn from combine pass? (I > guess not). In general, it is best to let combine just work on everything

[Bug fortran/103259] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in resolve_common_vars, at fortran/resolve.c:956 since r11-3866-g4d2a56a0f7135469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103259 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrew at fluidgravity dot c

[Bug fortran/110081] Unhelpful error message: "(null):0: confused by earlier errors, bailing out"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110081 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status

[Bug c++/110000] GCC should implement exclude_from_explicit_instantiation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11 --- Comment #13 from Louis Dionne --- Nikolas already answered some, but just to expand on this: > But on the topic of this enhancement request, I don't see why functions > should be excluded from explicit instantiation if they're already abi-

[Bug fortran/110076] ICE on mutually recursive derived types.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110076 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/88552] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1120

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88552 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|u

[Bug gcov-profile/110082] New: Coverage analysis vs. offloading compilation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110082 Bug ID: 110082 Summary: Coverage analysis vs. offloading compilation Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: openacc, openmp, wrong-code Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #6) > Created attachment 55191 [details] > patch that fixes bug > > The patch, which was previously submitted, still applies and fixes the bug. Sure. Do you have

[Bug target/101544] [OpenMP][AMDGCN][nvptx] C++ offloading: unresolved _Znwm = "operator new(unsigned long)"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101544 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||openacc Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/100607] ICE with SELECT RANK

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 --- Comment #8 from Steve Kargl --- On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 07:26:43PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100607 > > --- Comment #7 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to kargl from

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #53 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #52) > > There is TARGET_LEGITIMATE_COMBINED_INSN though, which is a workaround for if > you really do not want the instruction combiner to create particular > instr

[Bug fortran/88552] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1120

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88552 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ff8f45d20f9ea6acc99442ad29212d177f58e8fe commit r14-1477-gff8f45d20f9ea6acc99442ad29212d177f58e8fe Author: Harald Anlauf Date: Th

[Bug fortran/88552] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1120

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88552 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSI

[Bug target/109972] RISC-V: Could use umodsi3/udivsi3/divsi3 libcalls for 32-bit division/remainder on RV64 without M extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109972 palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug target/109972] RISC-V: Could use umodsi3/udivsi3/divsi3 libcalls for 32-bit division/remainder on RV64 without M extension

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109972 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to palmer from comment #1) > Thanks. Craig and I had talked about this offline, it looks like a real > improvement to me. We're not super worried about rv32 or code size, maybe > Kito is? I am c

[Bug libstdc++/109758] std::abs(__float128) doesn't support NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:099d469df67d8454aa393d036f4791912364bd4d commit r13-7406-g099d469df67d8454aa393d036f4791912364bd4d Author: Jonathan Wak

[Bug libstdc++/109758] std::abs(__float128) doesn't support NaN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109758 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|14.0|13.2 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wa

[Bug libstdc++/109947] std::expected monadic operations do not support move-only error types yet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109947 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigne

[Bug middle-end/29253] expand_abs wrong default code for floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29253 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 55235 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55235&action=edit Slightly different patch This is a slightly different patch but it basically does the same except it uses emit

[Bug middle-end/29253] expand_abs wrong default code for floating point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29253 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55235|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug middle-end/31542] Incorrect optization with nan values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31542 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- I can't reproduce this in any recent versions of GCC. Even in GCC 4.7.3 and GCC 4.6.4 it works and we get no assert.

  1   2   >