[Bug c++/102053] New: Invalid syntax of destructor call .~auto is accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102053 Bug ID: 102053 Summary: Invalid syntax of destructor call .~auto is accepted Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/101471] AVX512 incorrect writemask generated for _mm512_fpclass_ps_mask in O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101471 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:db3d4129b6f4cff685713da514b64ff7bbc401fc commit r12-3135-gdb3d4129b6f4cff685713da514b64ff7bbc401fc Author: konglin1 Date: Mon Aug

[Bug target/91897] Very poor optimization on large attribute vector_size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91897 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||88670 Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/88963] gcc generates terrible code for vectors of 64+ length which are not natively supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88963 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||91897 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug middle-end/88670] [meta-bug] generic vector extension issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88670 Bug 88670 depends on bug 88963, which changed state. Bug 88963 Summary: gcc generates terrible code for vectors of 64+ length which are not natively supported https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88963 What|Removed

[Bug middle-end/88963] gcc generates terrible code for vectors of 64+ length which are not natively supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88963 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |10.0 Status|NEW

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #13 from Hongtao.liu --- ;; Function fn (fn, funcdef_no=5484, decl_uid=32317, cgraph_uid=5485, symbol_order=5484) int fn (const int * px, const int * py, const int * pz, const int * pw, const int * pa, const int * pb, const int * pc,

[Bug tree-optimization/77689] Missing vectorization lead to huge performance loss

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77689 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- On the trunk, loop splitting code is there but it is not actually splitting the loop

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54412 Dmitry Kazakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dimula73 at gmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug target/98934] Very poor code generation for SSE 8-bit vector right shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98934 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 98399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/98399] x86: Awful code generation for shifting vectors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98399 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/98934] Very poor code generation for SSE 8-bit vector right shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98934 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This is really poor with -mavx512f even. We should be able to do it like (which is what LLVM does): vpmovzxbd %xmm1, %zmm1 vpmovzxbd %xmm0, %zmm0 vpsravd %zmm1, %zmm0, %zmm

[Bug tree-optimization/101895] [11/12 Regression] SLP Vectorizer change pushes VEC_PERM_EXPR into bad location spoiling further optimization opportunities

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101895 --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Understood WRT phase ordering. That was fully expected. What I still don't understand is why moving the permute down is profitable here or generally why moving a permute into a dependency chain is profita

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #11) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9) > > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > > > > Do we have IR f

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #11 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9) > > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > > > Do we have IR for unsigned/signed saturation in gimple level? > >

[Bug tree-optimization/51492] vectorizer does not support saturated arithmetic patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-May/236015.html

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9) > (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > > Do we have IR for unsigned/signed saturation in gimple level? > > Not yet. I was just looking for that today due b

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #8) > Do we have IR for unsigned/signed saturation in gimple level? Not yet. I was just looking for that today due because of PR 51492.

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #8 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Hongtao.liu from comment #7) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > > clang can now produce: > > mov eax, dword ptr [esp + 16] > > mov ecx, dword ptr [esp + 28] > >

[Bug tree-optimization/101434] vector-by-vector left shift expansion for char/short is not optimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101434 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #3) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > > Probably low priority if not doable nicely w/o XOP. > > -mxop can be substituted with -mavx512bw -mavx512vl for t

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #7 from Hongtao.liu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > clang can now produce: > mov eax, dword ptr [esp + 16] > mov ecx, dword ptr [esp + 28] > vmovdqu xmm0, xmmword ptr [ecx + 32] >

[Bug rtl-optimization/82356] auto-vectorizing pack of 16->8 has a redundant AND after a shift

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82356 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2021-08-14 00:00:00 |2021-8-24 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pin

[Bug middle-end/56873] vector shift lowered to scalars for -mxop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56873 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |5.0 Summary|vector shift lowe

[Bug tree-optimization/100696] mult_higpart is not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100696 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug middle-end/101950] __builtin_clrsb is never inlined

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101950 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug tree-optimization/101373] PRE hoists trapping instructions over possibly throwing calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101373 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.3

[Bug middle-end/101596] vect_recog_mulhs_pattern could use incorrect precision to check shift count

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101596 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/86723] not optimizing with bswap, that casts to int aftwards

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86723 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug target/101865] _ARCH_PWR8 is not defined when using -mcpu=power8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865 --- Comment #6 from HaoChen Gui --- (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5) > (In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #4) > > I wonder if it's a Power8 architecture when those 6 options are all > > disabled. Or it is regressed to Power7?

[Bug tree-optimization/101801] vect_worthwhile_without_simd_p is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101801 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug target/101989] Fail to optimize (a & b) | (c & ~b) to vpternlog instruction.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101989 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug target/101609] no right shift pattern for vector(2) long long on aarch64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101609 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug analyzer/102052] New: analyser testsuite failures with LLP64 model

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102052 Bug ID: 102052 Summary: analyser testsuite failures with LLP64 model Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: ana

[Bug target/101989] Fail to optimize (a & b) | (c & ~b) to vpternlog instruction.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101989 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4f5391dde1a83086b451f7534c815ab1267bb6bc commit r12-3133-g4f5391dde1a83086b451f7534c815ab1267bb6bc Author: liuhongt Date: Wed Aug

[Bug c++/102049] Extend attribute deprecated to allow optional 2nd argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102049 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/82426] Missed tree-slp-vectorization on -O2 and -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82426 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/101977] [12 Regression] array subscript 0 is outside array bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101977 --- Comment #6 from Alan Modra --- (In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #5) > The -Warray-bounds for section.c is gone Thanks for fixing that. > but last night's build still shows > a large number of -Warray-bounds instances as well as other

[Bug tree-optimization/43543] Reorder the statements in the loop can vectorize it

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43543 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug tree-optimization/51492] vectorizer does not support saturated arithmetic patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51492 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2016-01-04 00:00:00 |2021-8-24 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pin

[Bug tree-optimization/58359] __builtin_unreachable prevents vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58359 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||101993 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinsk

[Bug target/77287] Much worse code generated compared to clang (stack alignment and spills)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77287 --- Comment #6 from Petr --- Yes, the code is not really doing anything useful, I only wrote it to demonstrate the spills problem. Clang actually outsmarted me by removing half of the code :) I think this issue can be closed, I cannot repro this

[Bug analyzer/101980] [12 regressions] many test case failures after r12-3002

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101980 Hans-Peter Nilsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/63330] vector shuffle resembling vector shift not expanded optimally

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63330 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2014-09-22 00:00:00 |2021-8-24 Severity|normal

[Bug tree-optimization/53947] [meta-bug] vectorizer missed-optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947 Bug 53947 depends on bug 54803, which changed state. Bug 54803 Summary: Rotates are not vectorized https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54803 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug tree-optimization/54803] Rotates are not vectorized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54803 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/102039] another case of template function signature incorrectly dropping top-level cv-qualifier with function parameter dependent on template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102039 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||24666 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/102051] [coroutines] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2848

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102051 --- Comment #1 from Vitali --- Tested via godbolt on 11 & 12.

[Bug c++/102051] New: [coroutines] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2848

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102051 Bug ID: 102051 Summary: [coroutines] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2848 Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/92293] No reason given for template argument deduction failure with zero-length array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92293 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/91235] Array size expression is implicitly casted to unsigned long type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91235 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I think the warning is correct. there is no negative sizes; only size_t sizes for array.

[Bug c++/88829] Failure to deduce size of array of 2^31 chars

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88829 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- The error is now: :4:19: error: no matching function for call to 'foo(int [2147483648])' 4 | auto x = foo(a); | ^ :3:48: note: candidate: 'template T* foo(T (&)[N])' 3 |

[Bug c++/72842] non-type template-parameter of type void

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72842 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- For the original testcase, GCC, ICC, clang and MSVC all accept it.

[Bug c++/102044] another case of template function signature incorrectly dropping top-level cv-qualifier with function parameter of array of template function pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102044 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||24666 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug tree-optimization/102046] [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87 with -O3 -march=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- else if (!useless_type_conversion_p (elt_t, TREE_TYPE (elt_v))) { error ("incorrect type of vector CONSTRUCTOR elements"); debug_generic_stmt

[Bug tree-optimization/102046] [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87 with -O3 -march=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/102046] [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.c:87 with -O3 -march=btver2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102046 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug c/89153] internal compiler error: in assign_stack_local_1, at function.c:409

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89153 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/102024] [12 Regression] zero width bitfields and ABIs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #8) > So, I think, not removing those members from the FE makes sense, they contain > crucial information. Unfortunately that means that they need to be dealt > w

[Bug rtl-optimization/83545] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83545 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/83545] ICE at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.c:355

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83545 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/102050] New: Nonempty list-initialization rejects constructor with defaulted std::initializer_list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102050 Bug ID: 102050 Summary: Nonempty list-initialization rejects constructor with defaulted std::initializer_list Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Ke

[Bug bootstrap/61326] bootstrap failure of gcc-4.8.3 on ia64-hpux

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61326 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/63907] libitm/config/posix/rwlock.cc doesn't compile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63907 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|WAITING

[Bug c++/87032] incorrect nested structure with union initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87032 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug testsuite/90381] New test case gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr88676-2.c fails with its introduction in r270934

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90381 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > (In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #4) > > Are bitfields allocated right to left on all LE configs? > > I think the majority of them, I have not u

[Bug libstdc++/102048] __gnu_cxx::rope.erase(size_t __p) implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102048 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- That function was not part of the SGI rope so I think we should just remove it: https://www.boost.org/sgi/stl/Rope.html

[Bug rtl-optimization/102031] [12 Regression] ICE in simplify_truncation, at simplify-rtx.c:620 since r12-3074-g7e5f9ead16d7514b3baa0254084de94f0bfcd216

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102031 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:81e1894456bc6214c0c42148ff2b1bed142a3545 commit r12-3130-g81e1894456bc6214c0c42148ff2b1bed142a3545 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Tue A

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 91290, which changed state. Bug 91290 Summary: pragma maybe-uninitialized does not propagate to lambda https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91290 What|Removed |Added

[Bug c++/91290] pragma maybe-uninitialized does not propagate to lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91290 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0 CC|

[Bug lto/48180] '-fuse-linker-plugin' doesn't work.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48180 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||malcolm2190 at att dot net --- Comment #

[Bug other/81326] gcc-ar: Cannot find plugin 'liblto_plugin.so' Mac Sierra Xcode 8.3.3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81326 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/81237] Cannot link when class methods compiled with different levels of abi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81237 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI Status|WAITING

[Bug rtl-optimization/80715] NULL pointer dereferenced in find_costs_and_classes, at ira-costs.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80715 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug bootstrap/51742] 4.6.2 v. HP-UX 11.11, PA-RISC: "make bootstrap-lean" fails: "internal compiler error: Segmentation fault" (In function '__fixunssfdi')

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51742 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/102049] Extend attribute deprecated to allow optional 2nd argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102049 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug c++/102049] New: Extend attribute deprecated to allow optional 2nd argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102049 Bug ID: 102049 Summary: Extend attribute deprecated to allow optional 2nd argument Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/93834] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE in trans_caf_is_present, at fortran/trans-intrinsic.c:8469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93834 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|u

[Bug bootstrap/43748] build machinery insufficient for installing target specific .def files as plugin headers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43748 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/19987] [meta-bug] fold missing optimizations in general

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19987 Bug 19987 depends on bug 95176, which changed state. Bug 95176 Summary: Failure to optimize division followed by multiplication to modulo followed by subtraction https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95176 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/95176] Failure to optimize division followed by multiplication to modulo followed by subtraction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95176 Arjun Shankar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug other/82648] libiberty/regex.c:2364]: pointless test ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82648 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- This happens only when WCHAR is defined. This code is old and has changed a lot in glibc. Most likely when gcc moves over to gnulib from libiberty for this code, this most likely will fix itself.

[Bug other/89863] [meta-bug] Issues in gcc that other static analyzers (cppcheck, clang-static-analyzer, PVS-studio) find that gcc misses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89863 Bug 89863 depends on bug 80049, which changed state. Bug 80049 Summary: gcc/genmodes.c: PVS-Studio: NULL Pointer Dereference (CWE-476) https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80049 What|Removed |Added

[Bug other/80049] gcc/genmodes.c: PVS-Studio: NULL Pointer Dereference (CWE-476)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80049 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/97223] Failure to optimize comparison of char arithmetic to single comparison

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97223 Arjun Shankar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/102048] __gnu_cxx::rope.erase(size_t __p) implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102048 --- Comment #3 from Zonghan Yang --- I couldn't find document explicitly states how the function works but only the line of comment above it shows the idea. So I guess it's just a small typo but not found for years since no one really document i

[Bug middle-end/99486] Feature request: -fstack-check option for embedded processors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99486 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|other |middle-end Severity|normal

[Bug libgcc/12955] Incorrect rounding of soft float denorm mul/div

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12955 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|eager at mvista dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/102048] __gnu_cxx::rope.erase(size_t __p) implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102048 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/81458] Misdetection of gcc_cv_as_cfi_advance_working

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81458 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/98411] [10/11/12 Regression] Pointless: Array larger than ‘-fmax-stack-var-size=’, moved from stack to static storage for main program variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98411 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a commit r12-3129-gf95946afd160e2a1f4beac4ee5e6d5633307f39a Author: Harald Anlauf Date: T

[Bug libstdc++/102048] __gnu_cxx::rope.erase(size_t __p) implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102048 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- We should just delete this class, so I don't have to keep fixing bugs in code that nobody uses or cares about.

[Bug other/85898] I receive a segmentation fault due to an "internal compiler error"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85898 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|WAITING

[Bug other/67457] segfault in libbacktrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67457 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tobias at stoeckmann dot org --- Comment

[Bug other/67392] Invalid mmap return value check in libbacktrace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67392 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/102048] New: __gnu_cxx::rope.erase(size_t __p) implementation seems to be wrong

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102048 Bug ID: 102048 Summary: __gnu_cxx::rope.erase(size_t __p) implementation seems to be wrong Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/102012] GCC accepts any non-bool atomic constraint type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102012 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to 康桓瑋 from comment #3) > (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1) > > Hmm, I think this might actually be well-formed according to [temp.names]/9. > > I don't see why we'd need to check satisfa

[Bug c++/102045] [11/12 regression] constructor is not being instantiated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102045 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/101977] [12 Regression] array subscript 0 is outside array bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101977 --- Comment #5 from Martin Sebor --- The -Warray-bounds for section.c is gone but last night's build still shows a large number of -Warray-bounds instances as well as other warnings for Binutils & GDB. I haven't analyzed any of them. The brea

[Bug c++/102012] GCC accepts any non-bool atomic constraint type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102012 --- Comment #3 from 康桓瑋 --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #1) > Hmm, I think this might actually be well-formed according to [temp.names]/9. > I don't see why we'd need to check satisfaction of a concept-id inside > decltype if its typ

[Bug tree-optimization/56456] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Warray-bounds

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 101977, which changed state. Bug 101977 Summary: [12 Regression] array subscript 0 is outside array bounds https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101977 What|Removed |Added ---

  1   2   3   >