[Bug target/118966] New: [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 Bug ID: 118966 Summary: [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: norm

[Bug c++/118969] GCC accepts a program containing the [[likely]] attribute outside of a function context, while Clang correctly rejects it due to a syntax error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118969 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/118966] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Filip Kastl from comment #1) > I've recently reported some slowdowns related to r15-7400. Maybe that > commit caused this slowdown too? I doubt it since r15-7400 should only have an effect on

[Bug c++/118969] New: GCC accepts a program containing the [[likely]] attribute outside of a function context, while Clang correctly rejects it due to a syntax error.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118969 Bug ID: 118969 Summary: GCC accepts a program containing the [[likely]] attribute outside of a function context, while Clang correctly rejects it due to a syntax error. Pro

[Bug c++/118964] include in the module causes a compilation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118964 Nathaniel Shead changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nshead at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/118968] New: GCC compiles illegal label in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118968 Bug ID: 118968 Summary: GCC compiles illegal label in constexpr Product: gcc Version: 10.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/118964] include in the module causes a compilation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118964 --- Comment #3 from printfne at gmail dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you provide the preprocessed source and NOT just a cmake file but all of > the commands neded to generate the error? Of course. // main.cpp imp

[Bug fortran/48958] Add runtime diagnostics for SIZE intrinsic function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48958 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug target/118959] [15 Regression] 5-14% slowdown of 400.perlbench since r15-7400-gd3ff498c478ace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118959 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/118966] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 --- Comment #1 from Filip Kastl --- I've recently reported some slowdowns related to r15-7400. Maybe that commit caused this slowdown too?

[Bug target/118966] [15 Regression] 6% slowdown of 464.h264ref on Aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118966 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Host|x86_64-linux

[Bug ada/118939] [14 Regression] ada: executable segfaults on arm-linux-gnueabi when assigning an access to controlled type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118939 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/118964] include in the module causes a compilation error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118964 --- Comment #5 from Nathaniel Shead --- I've just sent https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/676280.html referencing some previous work I'd done to avoid the GMF into purview issue, in case that is the issue here.

[Bug c++/118968] GCC compiles illegal label in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118968 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/97846] No diagnostic for use of identifier label in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97846 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug c++/97846] No diagnostic for use of identifier label in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97846 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qurong at ios dot ac.cn --- Comment #4 f

[Bug c++/118799] [15 Regression] [modules] error on typedefs in anonymous namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118799 Nathaniel Shead changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Nathanie

[Bug c++/80681] missing -Wuninitialized for const or reference member of a private base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80681 xxie_xd changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xxie_xd at 163 dot com --- Comment #5 from xxi

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #10 from Erich Löw --- Envs: GCCVERSION=15.0.1 CCFLAGS=-pipe -march=native -O2 -fPIC -fomit-frame-pointer $GCCVERSION is initialized as this: export GCCVERSION=`gcc -dumpfullversion`

[Bug libstdc++/111589] Use relaxed atomic increment (but not decrement!) in shared_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111589 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |16.0

[Bug c/118983] New: I'm using the gcc comes from the Ubuntu 20.04, but it faied to compile a C program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118983 Bug ID: 118983 Summary: I'm using the gcc comes from the Ubuntu 20.04, but it faied to compile a C program Product: gcc Version: 9.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug preprocessor/96935] [9 Regression] ICE in subspan, at input.h:69

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96935 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wzis at hotmail dot com --- Comment #12

[Bug c/118983] I'm using the gcc comes from the Ubuntu 20.04, but it faied to compile a C program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118983 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note also GCC 10 is no longer supported upstream. So try GCC 12+ and see if it fails there. Plus you didn't give a testcase. Please read https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#need next time. Also the message from Ub

[Bug c/118983] I'm using the gcc comes from the Ubuntu 20.04, but it faied to compile a C program

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118983 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/54412] minimal 32-byte stack alignment with -mavx on 64-bit Windows

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412 Chris Wellons changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wellons at nullprogram dot com --- Comme

[Bug tree-optimization/46236] Local aggregate not eliminated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46236 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/78399] g++ generates sub-optimal assembler code when structs aren't explicitly aligned.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78399 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/61034] Optimizing takes too many passes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61034 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #14) > Note removing the definitions of operator new/delete is still not optimized > even on the trunk I have not checked out why though. Unless we turn off exce

[Bug tree-optimization/90285] Poor optimised codegen for memmove() back on top of oneself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug tree-optimization/90285] Poor optimised codegen for memmove() back on top of oneself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90285 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 60559 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60559&action=edit Testcase

[Bug ipa/96252] [12/13/14/15 Regression] missed optimization where identical functions have very different codegen since gcc 10

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96252 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/117655] std::string::swap() could be much faster and smaller

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117655 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 60560 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60560&action=edit testcase

[Bug tree-optimization/117793] missed copy propagation across memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117793 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #8 from Erich Löw --- I try 1. Version of GCC: gcc (GCC) 15.0.1 20250219 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2025 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #11 from Erich Löw --- The whole env output: LS_COLORS=no=00:fi=00:di=01;34:ln=00;36:pi=40;33:so=01;35:do=01;35:bd=40;33;01:cd=40;33;01:or=41;33;01:ex=00;32:*.cmd=00;32:*.exe=01;32:*.com=01;32:*.bat=01;32:*.btm=01;32:*.dll=01;32:*.t

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Erich Löw from comment #10) > Envs: > > GCCVERSION=15.0.1 > CCFLAGS=-pipe -march=native -O2 -fPIC -fomit-frame-pointer > > $GCCVERSION is initialized as this: > export GCCVERSION=`gcc -dumpfu

[Bug c++/118982] New: Documentation for constructor and init_priority should be refenceing each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118982 Bug ID: 118982 Summary: Documentation for constructor and init_priority should be refenceing each other Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords

[Bug tree-optimization/14295] [tree-ssa] copy propagation for aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14295 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- Note looking into how LLVM implements this is almost exactly the same as I have implemented. The memset/memcpy -> memset/memset is exactly the same (though it does work with other things inbetween).

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #13) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > > init_priority attribute should most likely link back to the constructor > > function attribute for the descri

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > init_priority attribute should most likely link back to the constructor > function attribute for the description of the priority . And the constructor attrib

[Bug libstdc++/118981] tzdb.cc contains 3 times in sequence: [[gnu::init_priority(99)]]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118981 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- "-march=native -O2" is not normally used when compiling libstdc++. You must have some env variables set. Can you provide the output of `env` too?

[Bug tree-optimization/117204] [12/13/14/15 regression] After r12-2132-ga1108556677, bogus -Warray-bounds warnings in std::vector::back()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117204 Dimitry Andric changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dimitry at andric dot com --- Comment

<    1   2