[Bug tree-optimization/104269] [12 Regression] Bogus -Wuse-after-free seen in xen

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104269 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- The easiest would be to run _before_ uncprop. uncprop is really part of out-of-SSA to reduce the number of copies on edges (maybe it should be merged into it instead of being visible as separate pass).

[Bug rtl-optimization/104153] [12 Regression] ICE due to recent ifcvt changes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104153 --- Comment #5 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com --- I would speculate that some of the FAILs are due to the same problem seen in the other PR (104198), i.e. that for the second seq I wrongly assumed that the backend does not recreate the original

[Bug rtl-optimization/104198] [12 regression] ifcvt change breaks 64-bit SPARC bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104198 --- Comment #13 from rdapp at linux dot ibm.com --- I was away for some days, going to look into this again today.

[Bug tree-optimization/104297] New: MIN_EXPR is not detected for a >= -__INT_MAX__ ? -__INT_MAX__ : a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104297 Bug ID: 104297 Summary: MIN_EXPR is not detected for a >= -__INT_MAX__ ? -__INT_MAX__ : a Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords:

[Bug c++/103341] [11 Regression] ICE type of variable instantiation constrained on template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103341 --- Comment #6 from Arseny Solokha --- g++ 12.0.1 20220130 snapshot (g:baf98320ac6cd56da0c0b460fb94e3b87a79220d) still ICEs on the testcase in comment 3.

[Bug middle-end/104296] New: MIN should simplify to unsigned != 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104296 Bug ID: 104296 Summary: MIN should simplify to unsigned != 0 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization Severity: enhancement

[Bug c++/98675] Accessing member of temporary outside its lifetime allowed in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98675 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Tobias Schlüter from comment #3) > Sorry, in my example, I think actually clang is wrong. What is the order of destruction of tempories here in the following statement: A() << 1 Is A()

[Bug c++/98675] Accessing member of temporary outside its lifetime allowed in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98675 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Schlüter --- Sorry, in my example, I think actually clang is wrong.

[Bug c++/98675] Accessing member of temporary outside its lifetime allowed in constexpr function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98675 Tobias Schlüter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tobi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/104295] ICE: tree check: expected template_decl, have error_mark in build_deduction_guide, at cp/pt.cc:29079

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104295 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||11.2.0, 7.1.0 Keywords|

[Bug c++/104295] New: ICE: tree check: expected template_decl, have error_mark in build_deduction_guide, at cp/pt.cc:29079

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104295 Bug ID: 104295 Summary: ICE: tree check: expected template_decl, have error_mark in build_deduction_guide, at cp/pt.cc:29079 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status:

[Bug c++/104294] New: ICE: tree check: accessed elt 2 of 'tree_vec' with 1 elts in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.cc:13130

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104294 Bug ID: 104294 Summary: ICE: tree check: accessed elt 2 of 'tree_vec' with 1 elts in tsubst_pack_expansion, at cp/pt.cc:13130 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status:

Re: [PATCH] sh-linux fix target cpu

On Fri, 2022-01-28 at 15:18 -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > > On 1/12/2022 2:02 AM, Yoshinori Sato wrote: > > sh-linux not supported any SH1 and SH2a little-endian. > > Add exceptios it. > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > * config/sh/t-linux (MULTILIB_EXCEPTIONS): Add m1, mb/m1 and

[PATCH] libgccjit: Add support for setting the alignment [PR104293]

Hi. This patch adds support for setting the alignment of variables in libgccjit. I was wondering if I should change it so that it takes/returns bytes instead of bits. What do you think? Thanks for the review. From ebdb6905f23ddef28292a1d71081eebb7a2a9bb9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Antoni

[Bug sanitizer/95137] Sanitizers seem to be missing support for coroutines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95137 Barnabás Pőcze changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pobrn at protonmail dot com ---

[Bug jit/104293] New: Add support for setting the alignment of variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104293 Bug ID: 104293 Summary: Add support for setting the alignment of variables Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug middle-end/78947] sub-optimal code for (bool)(int ? int : int)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78947 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

gcc-12-20220130 is now available

Snapshot gcc-12-20220130 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20220130/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

[Bug tree-optimization/104292] [missed optimization] boolean addition generates suboptimal code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/104189] enable 64-bit compare-and-swap on SPARC/Linux with V9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104189 --- Comment #8 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- Any updates on this?

[Bug c++/104291] [12 Regression] gcc accepts template argument involves template parameter(s)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104291 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|

[Bug rtl-optimization/102446] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c/104289] -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits doesn't always generate fixit notes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104289 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/104292] [missed optimization] boolean addition generates suboptimal code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-01-30 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/104292] [missed optimization] boolean addition generates suboptimal code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

Re: Bisecting

On Sun, 2022-01-30 at 01:09 +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jan 2022, 20:25 Søren Holm via Gcc, wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I believe I have found some kind of bug in GCC. The target is a > > cortex-m7 CPU. I do not have an isolated test software so I'm > > thinking > > of

[PATCH] fold-const: do not fold 'inf/inf' with -ftrapping-math [PR95115]

'inf/inf' should raise an invalid operation exception at runtime. So it should not be folded during compilation unless -fno-trapping-math is used. gcc/ PR middle-end/95115 * fold-const.cc (const_binop): Do not fold "inf/inf". gcc/testsuite * gcc.dg/pr95115.c: New test.

[Bug tree-optimization/104292] [missed optimization] boolean addition generates suboptimal code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292 --- Comment #1 from Avi Kivity --- btw, I see that the equivalent bool_and generates optimal code. bool_and(bool, bool): movl%esi, %eax andl%edi, %eax ret Perhaps bool is written with the expectation that any

[Bug tree-optimization/104292] New: [missed optimization] boolean addition generates suboptimal code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104292 Bug ID: 104292 Summary: [missed optimization] boolean addition generates suboptimal code Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite: Don't run lwg3464.cc tests on simulators to 20

> From: Jonathan Wakely > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 18:06:28 +0100 > On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:54, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > From: Jonathan Wakely > > > But there is nothing target-specific in that code, so it > > > should be fine to disable them for simulators. They're > > > already

[Bug c++/104291] New: gcc accepts template argument involves template parameter(s)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104291 Bug ID: 104291 Summary: gcc accepts template argument involves template parameter(s) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite: Don't run lwg3464.cc tests on simulators to 20

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 16:54, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > (I had to add separation between your reply and mine in the > quoted parts; you may be aware.) > > > From: Jonathan Wakely > > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:32:08 +0100 > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, 01:37 Hans-Peter Nilsson via Libstdc++, > >

[PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite: Don't run lwg3464.cc tests on simulators to 20

(I had to add separation between your reply and mine in the quoted parts; you may be aware.) > From: Jonathan Wakely > Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2022 09:32:08 +0100 > On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, 01:37 Hans-Peter Nilsson via Libstdc++, > mailto:libstdc%2b...@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote: > > These tests have always

[Bug middle-end/95115] RISC-V 64: inf/inf division optimized out, invalid operation not raised

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95115 --- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao --- This is causing Glibc test failure on every port without hardware acos/asin instruction.

[Bug libstdc++/92770] std::unordered_map requires both T and U to be fully declared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- The relevant changes were r12-4258-g64acc43de1e336 and r12-4259-gd87105d697ced1

[Bug fortran/80524] [F03] Problematic behaviour with a finalization subroutine in gfortran

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80524 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug go/104290] New: [12 Regression] trunk 20220126 fails to build libgo on i686-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104290 Bug ID: 104290 Summary: [12 Regression] trunk 20220126 fails to build libgo on i686-gnu Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/104289] New: -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits doesn't always generate fixit notes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104289 Bug ID: 104289 Summary: -fdiagnostics-parseable-fixits doesn't always generate fixit notes Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/92770] std::unordered_map requires both T and U to be fully declared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Intentionally, but it's not guaranteed to keeps working in future. The standard still says it's undefined.

[Bug rtl-optimization/102446] [9/10/11/12 Regression] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102446 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- It still fails for me. As I corrected in #c7, I didn't mean ICE but miscompilation (at -O3).

[Bug ipa/103083] [10/11/12 Regression] Wrong code due to ipa-cp's bits value propagation since r10-5538-gc7ac9a0c7e3916f1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103083 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] Wrong |[10/11/12 Regression] Wrong

Re: Enquiry

Meta-comment: a subject line of "Enquiry" is very vague, and most commonly used by spammers and phishers. Your enquiry is about undefined behaviour due to a missing return, which would have been a much better subject. On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, 09:48 Theodore Papadopoulo, <

Re: Enquiry

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, 10:58 Jakub Jelinek, wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:50:56AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > We could put a trap instruction at the end of the function though, which > > would make the result a bit less arbitrary. > > > > I've come around to thinking that's preferable

[Bug tree-optimization/104288] [11/12 Regression] EVRP null pointer check removal for strcmp (and maybe others) is not flow senative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,

Re: Enquiry

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:50:56AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > We could put a trap instruction at the end of the function though, which > would make the result a bit less arbitrary. > > I've come around to thinking that's preferable for cases like this. Depends on which exact cases. Because

Re: Enquiry

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, 10:42 Jakub Jelinek via Gcc, wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > > Before creating a bug report, I want to check with the GCC community (all > > the more that checking that the problem has not yet been reported is > > complicated

Re: Enquiry

On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:47:41AM +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > Before creating a bug report, I want to check with the GCC community (all > the more that checking that the problem has not yet been reported is > complicated at leat for me). > > The following (admitedly buggy) program

[Bug tree-optimization/104288] [11/12 Regression] EVRP null pointer check removal for strcmp (and maybe others) is not flow senative

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection

[Bug middle-end/104288] [11/12 Regression] Null pointer check invalidly deleted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-01-30 Summary|Null

Re: [EXTERNAL] [PATCH] testsuite: Fix up tree-ssa/pr103514.c testcase [PR103514]

Thanks Jakob for the correction. Sadly, I didn’t have any access to any non x86 architecture. But x86 was fully tested and there was no regression. In my spare time I will look at implementation of this for short-circuit targets. Best wishes, Navid. From: Jakub

[Bug c/104288] New: Null pointer check invalidly deleted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104288 Bug ID: 104288 Summary: Null pointer check invalidly deleted Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug libstdc++/92770] std::unordered_map requires both T and U to be fully declared

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92770 Fedor Chelnokov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fchelnokov at gmail dot com ---

[Bug c++/58855] Attributes ignored on type alias in template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58855 gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl

Enquiry

Before creating a bug report, I want to check with the GCC community (all the more that checking that the problem has not yet been reported is complicated at leat for me). The following (admitedly buggy) program generates a segmentation violation on fedora 35 (this is with g++ 11.2.1 20211203

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite: Increase lwg3464.cc timeout factors to 20

On Sun, 30 Jan 2022, 01:37 Hans-Peter Nilsson via Libstdc++, < libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > These tests have always been failing for my cris-elf > autotester running a simulator; they take about 20 minutes > each, compared to the timeout of 720 seconds, doubled > because they timed out in

[Bug d/104287] [12 regression] error: spurious trailing punctuation sequence ').' in format [-Werror=format-diag]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104287 Andreas Schwab changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug d/104287] New: [12 regression] error: spurious trailing punctuation sequence ').' in format [-Werror=format-diag]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104287 Bug ID: 104287 Summary: [12 regression] error: spurious trailing punctuation sequence ').' in format [-Werror=format-diag] Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: