[Bug objc/101718] Objective-C frontend emits wrong code to call methods returning scalar types returned in memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101718 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:106cfc476a55c7423dca23be1eb0a5fb5da736b5 commit r11-11302-g106cfc476a55c7423dca23be1eb0a5fb5da736b5 Author: Iain Sandoe D

[Bug objc/101718] Objective-C frontend emits wrong code to call methods returning scalar types returned in memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101718 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/88309] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE: Floating point exception (in is_miss_rate_acceptable), target assigning alignent of 4 bits(!) to vector

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88309 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||willschm at gcc dot gnu.org S

[Bug target/111610] Cannot build cross compiler to darwin targets after r14-4108-g47346acb72b50d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111610 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:17e5d36db43f22a696a97c24afb5fb36b00dfb0b commit r13-8533-g17e5d36db43f22a696a97c24afb5fb36b00dfb0b Author: Iain Sandoe Da

[Bug tree-optimization/114164] simdclone vectorization creates unsupported IL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114164 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug c++/114479] [14 Regression] std::is_array_v changed from false to true in GCC 14

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114479 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- [dcl.array] says that for T[N] the value "N specifies the array bound, i.e., the number of elements in the array; N shall be greater than zero." So T[0] is not a valid array type. And std::is_array has ne

[Bug c++/114536] New: wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536 Bug ID: 114536 Summary: wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/114536] wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- So in the case of bitfields there is a padding bit(s) which are still uninitialized and this might be undefined at runtime even.

[Bug c++/114536] wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536 --- Comment #2 from Fedor Chelnokov --- May be just fail constant evaluation then instead of evaluating it to 0?

[Bug c++/114536] wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #2) > May be just fail constant evaluation then instead of evaluating it to 0? I suspect gcc is not rejecting it because the struct is just one unsigned char and it

[Bug c++/114536] wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- The padding bit has an indeterminate value. Because the result type is an unsigned char, the indeterminate bit does not produce undefined behaviour, but it's not allowed in a constant expression. I don't

[Bug c++/114536] wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114536 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Fedor Chelnokov from comment #2) > May be just fail constant evaluation then instead of evaluating it to 0? Hmm, yes, it should fail to produce a constant expression.

[Bug fortran/114535] ICE with elemental finalizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114535 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org Assign

[Bug fortran/114535] [13/14 regression] ICE with elemental finalizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114535 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|ICE with elemental |[13/14 regression] ICE with

[Bug fortran/106999] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE tree check: expected record_type or union_type or qual_union_type, have function_type in gfc_class_data_get, at fortran/trans-expr.cc:233

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106999 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org Assign

[Bug fortran/106987] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in simplify_intrinsic_op, at fortran/expr.cc:1305

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106987 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org Assign

[Bug target/105522] [powerpc-darwin] ICE: in decode_addr_const, at varasm.c:3059

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105522 --- Comment #17 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bd760ac35d792683cd82f6b665516528fe11752a commit r13-8537-gbd760ac35d792683cd82f6b665516528fe11752a Author: Iain Sandoe D

[Bug fortran/107426] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_compare_derived_types, at fortran/interface.cc:636

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107426 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Mikael Morin : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fc5c603da3c9b186308fb3afef7bcf3f3bf695e8 commit r13-8543-gfc5c603da3c9b186308fb3afef7bcf3f3bf695e8 Author: Mikael Morin D

[Bug fortran/114535] [13/14 regression] ICE with elemental finalizer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114535 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Benson --- Thanks Paul. The workaround is very helpful and lets me continue making progress in the rest of my work for now. Thanks again!

[Bug c++/114536] wrong constant evaluation of std::bit_cast for bit fields

_cast involving bit-field is not yet supported But anyways with the padding bit. With signed char instead of unsigned char, GCC gives: ``` /opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20240331/include/c++/14.0.1/bit:94:33: error: '__builtin_bit_cast' accessing uninitialized byte at offset 0 ``` That

[Bug c++/114537] New: bit_cast does not work NSDMI of bitfields

: in 'constexpr' expansion of 'std::bit_cast(A{0, 0})' /opt/compiler-explorer/gcc-trunk-20240331/include/c++/14.0.1/bit:94:33: sorry, unimplemented: '__builtin_bit_cast' cannot be constant evaluated because the argument cannot be encoded 94 | return

[Bug bootstrap/46333] problems with configure -enable-build-with-cxx -disable-bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46333 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug target/44002] need to #include unistd.h for pid_t on alpha-dec-vms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44002 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-03-31 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/39165] redundant simplify_cond in genattrtab.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39165 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Component|rtl-optimization

[Bug bootstrap/63684] Build failure due to "Let GDB reuse GCC's parser." (srcdir==objdir)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63684 --- Comment #17 from Andrew Pinski --- > --disable-libstdcxx That also seems like a bad option to use too.

[Bug tree-optimization/114538] New: constant fold for (v + 1 == 0) == (v + 1 < v) fails when v + 1 is stored in variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114538 Bug ID: 114538 Summary: constant fold for (v + 1 == 0) == (v + 1 < v) fails when v + 1 is stored in variable Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug bootstrap/63684] Build failure due to "Let GDB reuse GCC's parser." (srcdir==objdir)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63684 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/114455] [C++26] P2748R5 - Disallow binding a returned reference to a temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114455 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Assi

[Bug tree-optimization/114539] New: `__builtin_add_overflow(unsigned, b, &r); r < b` where b is a CST is not optimized to using the overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114539 Bug ID: 114539 Summary: `__builtin_add_overflow(unsigned, b, &r); r < b` where b is a CST is not optimized to using the overflow Product: gcc Version: 14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/114539] `__builtin_add_overflow(unsigned, b, &r); r < b` where b is a CST is not optimized to using the overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114539 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/114538] constant fold for (v + 1 == 0) == (v + 1 < v) fails when v + 1 is stored in variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114538 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Severity|normal

[Bug target/113233] LoongArch: target options from LTO objects not respected during linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113233 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by LuluCheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4736b317047ae6b04f7609843f21cb68fef6a0c1 commit r13-8545-g4736b317047ae6b04f7609843f21cb68fef6a0c1 Author: Lulu Cheng Date:

[Bug target/113233] LoongArch: target options from LTO objects not respected during linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113233 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by LuluCheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bf0b32d7929f8b4b15b21658d572b89ded03d8f8 commit r12-10303-gbf0b32d7929f8b4b15b21658d572b89ded03d8f8 Author: Lulu Cheng Date:

[Bug target/113233] LoongArch: target options from LTO objects not respected during linking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113233 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.4 Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/88321] Crosscompiled gcc does not use preinstalled as

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88321 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- The place where gcc usually finds the cross assembler/linker is aarch64-linux-gnu/bin/ rather than via the cross name unless you supply --with-as . Though I wonder if this should change ...

[Bug middle-end/114540] New: Use of atoi allows invalid registers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114540 Bug ID: 114540 Summary: Use of atoi allows invalid registers Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid Severity: normal Priority

[Bug other/44574] Avoid use of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Note I filed PR 114540 for the usage in varasm.cc (decode_reg_name_and_count) as you can come up with a few testcases where we don't reject invalid registers # when we should.

[Bug c/114541] New: Invalid gimple __BB# accepted due to usage of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114541 Bug ID: 114541 Summary: Invalid gimple __BB# accepted due to usage of atoi Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-invalid, ice-on-invalid-code

[Bug other/44574] [meta-bug] Avoid use of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Avoid use of atoi |[meta-bug] Avoid use of

[Bug other/44574] [meta-bug] Avoid use of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- >read-rtl-function.c Someone most likely can come up with a testcase for this one using the RTL parser.

[Bug lto/114542] New: -flto=4294967296 is treated the same as -flto=0 and -flto=4294967297 is treated the same as -flto=1 instead of being invalid options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114542 Bug ID: 114542 Summary: -flto=4294967296 is treated the same as -flto=0 and -flto=4294967297 is treated the same as -flto=1 instead of being invalid options Product: gcc

[Bug other/44574] [meta-bug] Avoid use of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- > opts.c > lto-wrapper.c > lto/lto.c These 3 are all about parsing of -flto=N option; PR 114542

[Bug bootstrap/105474] GCC fails to bootstrap with --disable-libstdcxx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/114168] [RISC-V] Compiler generates impossible addend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114168 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target|riscv*-*-*

[Bug target/114168] [RISC-V] Compiler generates impossible addend

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114168 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug target/91420] relocation truncated to fit: R_RISCV_HI20 against `.LC0' with GCC 8.2/8.3 with "-O2" on RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sch...@linux-m68k.org --- Comment #7 fro

[Bug target/91420] relocation truncated to fit: R_RISCV_HI20 against `.LC0' with GCC 8.2/8.3 with "-O2" on RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Waterman from comment #2) > The RISC-V code models currently in existence place a 2 GiB limit on > the extent of the statically linked portion of a binary. Rather than > a bug, I would de

[Bug target/114543] New: mcmodel=kernel generates relocation that definitely can't be handled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114543 Bug ID: 114543 Summary: mcmodel=kernel generates relocation that definitely can't be handled Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: link-fail

[Bug target/91420] relocation truncated to fit: R_RISCV_HI20 against `.LC0' with GCC 8.2/8.3 with "-O2" on RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91420 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8) > That is definitely a bug in mcmodel=kernel in the x86backenbd which is > different from the problem here even though both have same testcase. Filed the x86_64 is

[Bug libcc1/114389] internal compiler error when compiling structure field with name-conflict in gdb `command`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114389 --- Comment #1 from Tan Senqi --- reconfirmed at 2024-4-1 GCC: gcc (GCC) 14.0.1 20240401 (experimental) GDB: GNU gdb (GDB) 14.2 Platform: AMD64, ubuntu 20.04 Testcase is following; Note that the position where segmentation fault happens is diffe