[Bug libstdc++/112607] : _Normalize does not consider char_type for the basic_string_view case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c7c92d61d32f6fd7746e2844f68d1936e2b6f6f6 commit r13-8105-gc7c92d61d32f6fd7746e2844f68d1936e2b6f6f6 Author: Jonathan Wake

[Bug tree-optimization/112752] New: `~a - MIN, ~c>` is not optimized to `MAX,c> - a`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112752 Bug ID: 112752 Summary: `~a - MIN, ~c>` is not optimized to `MAX,c> - a` Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug libstdc++/112607] : _Normalize does not consider char_type for the basic_string_view case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112607 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/112752] `~a - MIN, ~c>` is not optimized to `MAX,c> - a`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112752 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I made a small mistake into what it should be optimized to: The MIN should be MAX (oops): that is: tmp = MAX(r, g); k = MAX(b, tmp);

[Bug target/111107] i686-w64-mingw32 does not realign stack when __attribute__((aligned)) or __attribute__((vector_size)) are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/112753] New: [14 Regression] unrecognizable insn building glibc for s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112753 Bug ID: 112753 Summary: [14 Regression] unrecognizable insn building glibc for s390x Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: ice-on-valid-code

[Bug target/111107] i686-w64-mingw32 does not realign stack when __attribute__((aligned)) or __attribute__((vector_size)) are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07 --- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou --- > I'd say that > > config/i386/cygming.h:#define STACK_REALIGN_DEFAULT TARGET_SSE > > is a non-working "fix". The appropriate default would be > -mincoming-stack-boundary=2. MIN_STACK_BOUNDARY should al

[Bug tree-optimization/112752] `~a - MIN, ~c>` is not optimized to `MAX,c> - a`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112752 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Here is a semi-reduced testcase: ``` #define byte unsigned char #define MIN(a, b) ((a) > (b)?(b):(a)) byte hh(byte r, byte g, byte b) { byte c = 255 - r; byte m = 255 - g; byte y = 255 - b; byte tmp

[Bug rtl-optimization/55757] Suboptimal interrupt prologue/epilogue for ARMv7-M (Cortex-M3)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55757 Yann Poupet changed: What|Removed |Added CC||yann at poupet dot eu --- Comment #8 from

[Bug target/112754] New: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl128b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754 Bug ID: 112754 Summary: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl128b Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug target/112755] New: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl256b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755 Bug ID: 112755 Summary: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl256b Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug target/112756] New: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl512b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112756 Bug ID: 112756 Summary: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl512b Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug target/112757] New: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl1024b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112757 Bug ID: 112757 Summary: RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl1024b Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug target/112754] RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl128b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754 --- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill --- See also: rv32_zvl128b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754 rv32_zvl256b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755 rv32_zvl512b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1127

[Bug target/112756] RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl512b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112756 --- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill --- See also: rv32_zvl128b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754 rv32_zvl256b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755 rv32_zvl512b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1127

[Bug target/112755] RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl256b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755 --- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill --- See also: rv32_zvl128b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754 rv32_zvl256b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755 rv32_zvl512b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1127

[Bug target/112757] RISC-V regression testsuite errors with rv32gcv_zvl1024b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112757 --- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill --- See also: rv32_zvl128b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112754 rv32_zvl256b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112755 rv32_zvl512b: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1127

[Bug testsuite/112729] gcc.target/i386/apx-interrupt-1.c etc. FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112729 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hongyu Wang : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:99fa0bfd63d97825c4221dcd3123940f1d0e6291 commit r14-5943-g99fa0bfd63d97825c4221dcd3123940f1d0e6291 Author: Hongyu Wang Date: Tue N

[Bug target/111107] i686-w64-mingw32 does not realign stack when __attribute__((aligned)) or __attribute__((vector_size)) are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07 --- Comment #15 from Zeb Figura --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #14) > > I'd say that > > > > config/i386/cygming.h:#define STACK_REALIGN_DEFAULT TARGET_SSE > > > > is a non-working "fix". The appropriate default would be > > -min

[Bug c++/101113] g++ thinks constructor suppressed by a requires clause is actually a bad copy constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101113 David Mazières changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/112758] New: Inconsistent Bitwise AND Operation Result between int and long long int on Different Optimization Levels in GCC Trunk

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112758 Bug ID: 112758 Summary: Inconsistent Bitwise AND Operation Result between int and long long int on Different Optimization Levels in GCC Trunk Product: gcc Versio

[Bug target/112751] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c fails after r14-5628-g53ba8d669550d3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112751 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||linkw at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed

[Bug target/112743] RISC-V: building FAIL with -march=rv64(or rv32)gc_zve32f_zvfh_zfh

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112743 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Pan Li : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:25a51e98fdd504826a40775a5e5b9ffb336b5aa1 commit r14-5945-g25a51e98fdd504826a40775a5e5b9ffb336b5aa1 Author: Pan Li Date: Wed Nov 29 14:3

[Bug target/112743] RISC-V: building FAIL with -march=rv64(or rv32)gc_zve32f_zvfh_zfh

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112743 --- Comment #4 from Li Pan --- There may be another ICE for zve32f, will double-check about the details.

[Bug sanitizer/112748] memmove(ptr, ptr, n) call optimized out even at -O0 with -fsanitize=undefined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112748 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug testsuite/112751] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/pcrel-sibcall-1.c fails after r14-5628-g53ba8d669550d3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112751 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |testsuite Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/112753] [14 Regression] unrecognizable insn building glibc for s390x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112753 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/112578] LoongArch: Wrong code -with -mlsx -fno-fp-int-builtin-inexact

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112578 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Xi Ruoyao : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:530348c418d9ec28aac5b151c15405bfb860e5c4 commit r14-5950-g530348c418d9ec28aac5b151c15405bfb860e5c4 Author: Xi Ruoyao Date: Sat Nov 1

[Bug target/112578] LoongArch: Wrong code -with -mlsx -fno-fp-int-builtin-inexact

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112578 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug driver/112759] New: [13 regression] mips -march=native detection broken with gcc 13+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112759 Bug ID: 112759 Summary: [13 regression] mips -march=native detection broken with gcc 13+ Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug driver/112759] [13 regression] mips -march=native detection broken with gcc 13+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112759 matoro changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matoro_gcc_bugzilla@matoro.

[Bug target/112760] New: [14 Regression] wrong code with -O2 -fno-dce -fno-guess-branch-probability -m8bit-idiv -mavx --param=max-cse-insns=0 and __builtin_add_overflow_p()

,7 +4,7 @@ # compiled by GNU C version 14.0.0 20231128 (experimental), GMP version 6.3.0, MPFR version 4.2.1, MPC version 1.3.1, isl version isl-0.26-GMP # GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=30 --param ggc-min-heapsize=4096 -# options passed: -m32 -m8bit-idiv -masm=intel -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -O2 -

[Bug target/111107] i686-w64-mingw32 does not realign stack when __attribute__((aligned)) or __attribute__((vector_size)) are used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=07 --- Comment #16 from Eric Botcazou --- > Why use STACK_REALIGN_DEFAULT rather than PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY_DEFAULT? We know that it works since Solaris has used it for ages, so this alternate way could be deemed riskier. But no strong opinion

<    1   2