[Bug fortran/105117] New: automatic deallocation of objects in procedures with heap arrays

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105117 Bug ID: 105117 Summary: automatic deallocation of objects in procedures with heap arrays Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/90226] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7994

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90226 --- Comment #1 from Arseny Solokha --- I cannot reproduce it w/ the current g++ 12.0.1 20220327 snapshot.

[Bug target/105116] New: ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1870 (error: unable to find a register to spill)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105116 Bug ID: 105116 Summary: ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1870 (error: unable to find a register to spill) Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/96645] [9/10/11/12 Regression] [CWG2335] std::variant default constructor and unparsed DMI

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96645 --- Comment #23 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0ce8154f1c72e6d701bff969a007938e2f986369 commit r12-7929-g0ce8154f1c72e6d701bff969a007938e2f986369 Author: Jason Merrill Date:

[Bug target/104853] [RISC-V] -march=rv64g not including extension Zifencei

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853 --- Comment #10 from Kito Cheng --- I plan to fix that in next few day for trunk and backport to GCC 11.

[Bug c++/105115] New: `demangle_const` causes infinite recursion and stack overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105115 Bug ID: 105115 Summary: `demangle_const` causes infinite recursion and stack overflow Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug analyzer/105074] [12 Regression] -fanalyzer ICEs on gnutls-3.7.3: cgraph_node::get_edge(gimple*) SIGSEGV since r12-7809-g5f6197d7c197f9d2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105074 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bero at lindev dot ch --- Comment #6

[Bug analyzer/105113] [12 Regression] Analyzer segfaults on __func__ in static function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug target/104853] [RISC-V] -march=rv64g not including extension Zifencei

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853 --- Comment #9 from rvalue --- Hi Kito: Thank you for your follow-up patch! Confirmed that these patches do work. The test program compiles successfully with no `-misa-spec` flag or `-misa-spec=2.2` flag. But when I set `-misa-spec=20190608`

[Bug c++/101869] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ::enumvalue is rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101869 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/105110] NTTP type deduction fails when dependent of previous NTTPs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|

[Bug other/105114] New: [12 regression] contrib/gcc_update hangs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105114 Bug ID: 105114 Summary: [12 regression] contrib/gcc_update hangs Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: other

[Bug fortran/100892] ICE on procedure pointer to function returning array of size n

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100892 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[Bug fortran/100892] ICE on procedure pointer to function returning array of size n

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100892 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b4e4b35f4ebe561826489bed971324efc99c5423 commit r12-7927-gb4e4b35f4ebe561826489bed971324efc99c5423 Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug analyzer/105113] [12 Regression] Analyzer segfaults on __func__ in static function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113 --- Comment #1 from Bernhard Rosenkraenzer --- Created attachment 52720 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52720=edit Reduced test case

[Bug analyzer/105113] New: [12 Regression] Analyzer segfaults on __func__ in static function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105113 Bug ID: 105113 Summary: [12 Regression] Analyzer segfaults on __func__ in static function Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug analyzer/105112] Speed up -fanalyzer on big-code.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112 --- Comment #2 from David Malcolm --- FWIW, "perf report" shows that these are the top items in the profile: 8.72% libc-2.31.so [.] _int_malloc 6.68% libc-2.31.so [.] _int_free 2.91% cc1 [.] ana::binding_map::binding_map 2.76%

[Bug fortran/100892] ICE on procedure pointer to function returning array of size n

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100892 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug ada/61027] gnatcmd gets SIGABRT during exception handling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61027 --- Comment #7 from simon at pushface dot org --- I think we should close this: no such problem with GCC 11.2.0 on Darwin 21.4.0.

[Bug c++/105111] Ambiguous constructor overload with requires constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111 --- Comment #3 from Andrei-Edward Popa --- Thanks for that reference to the standard, it is clear to me why gcc reject this call as ambiguous.

[Bug ada/89583] GNAT.Sockets.Bind_Socket fails with IPv4 address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89583 --- Comment #4 from simon at pushface dot org --- I just ran "make check-gnat" with /Volumes/Miscellaneous1/x86_64/gcc/gcc/gnatmake version 12.0.1 20220311 (experimental) (x86_64-apple-darwin21), with only two fails: FAIL: gnat.dg/bias1.adb

[Bug analyzer/105112] Speed up -fanalyzer on big-code.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Example state (picked at random from -fdump-analyzer-exploded-nodes-2 output): EN 113734: preds: EN: 113733 succs: EN: 113735 callstring: [] before (SN: 12511 stmt: 0): if (j_8254 <= 8191) 31 | for (j =

[Bug analyzer/105112] New: Speed up -fanalyzer on big-code.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105112 Bug ID: 105112 Summary: Speed up -fanalyzer on big-code.c Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: analyzer

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #30 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28) > Also, what does LLVM do? clang-14 agree with gcc-12 on the return values, as we expected (the ABI documentation is clear enough). But clang-14 treats arguments

[Bug c++/105111] Ambiguous constructor overload with requires constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Palka --- FWIW one workaround could be to consistently use 'T' or 'const T&' as the first function parameter for both functions. Another workaround could be to constrain the second overload with

[Bug c++/96333] [10/11 Regression] Regression on concepts constraint checking

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96333 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andrei.popa105 at yahoo dot com ---

[Bug c++/105111] Ambiguous constructor overload with requires constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[Bug c++/105111] New: Ambiguous constructor overload with requires constraint

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105111 Bug ID: 105111 Summary: Ambiguous constructor overload with requires constraint Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug ada/63675] Non-confirming aspect doesn’t fail

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63675 --- Comment #2 from simon at pushface dot org --- Not sure when this was fixed, but OK in 11.2.0: $ /opt/gcc-11.2.0/bin/gnatmake -c -u -f union.ads gcc -c union.ads union.ads:15:06: warning: discriminated record has no direct equivalent in C

[Bug gcov-profile/105063] [GCOV] Ability to map .gcda paths

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063 --- Comment #4 from vit9696 --- Path length limitation in the current case is 200 bytes, but in general the issue is that we would like _to be able to properly set the gcda path for the target_. Currently the specified path may not even exist

[Bug middle-end/105032] Compiling inline ASM x86 causing GCC stuck in an endless loop with 100% CPU usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032 --- Comment #12 from Vladimir Makarov --- GCC-11 branch needs a bit different patch. I'll commit a modified patch to gcc-11 branch on Friday.

[Bug middle-end/105032] Compiling inline ASM x86 causing GCC stuck in an endless loop with 100% CPU usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:22b0476a814a4759bb68f38b9415624a0fe52a7d commit r12-7924-g22b0476a814a4759bb68f38b9415624a0fe52a7d Author: Vladimir N. Makarov

[Bug middle-end/105032] Compiling inline ASM x86 causing GCC stuck in an endless loop with 100% CPU usage

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105032 --- Comment #10 from Vladimir Makarov --- I've reproduced the bug also on the trunk. The loop in question assumes a specific order for reload insns. In this case order of insns involving the reload pseudos is violated because the pseudo is

[Bug ada/80869] Ada.Directories is missing Name_Case_Equivalence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80869 Arnaud Charlet changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug ada/80869] Ada.Directories is missing Name_Case_Equivalence

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80869 --- Comment #1 from simon at pushface dot org --- This was fixed 4 years ago.

[Bug libquadmath/105101] incorrect rounding for sqrtq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101 --- Comment #3 from kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to kargl from comment #2) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > > > So, do we need to switch to soft-fp based implementation for it (we have a > > copy already in

[Bug libquadmath/105101] incorrect rounding for sqrtq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug fortran/105105] [Meta] Fortran IEEE support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105105 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||67531, 69101, 78314, 82968,

[Bug c++/105110] New: NTTP type deduction fails when dependent of previous NTTPs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105110 Bug ID: 105110 Summary: NTTP type deduction fails when dependent of previous NTTPs Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/105109] [12 Regression] False positive warning on complex float code since r12-155

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105109 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/105109] New: [12 Regression] False positive warning on complex float code since r12-155

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105109 Bug ID: 105109 Summary: [12 Regression] False positive warning on complex float code since r12-155 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 --- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 52719 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52719=edit gcc12-pr102772.patch So like this?

[Bug target/104414] [AArch64] About the condition of calls_alloca in aarch64_layout_frame

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104414 Richard Earnshaw changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 --- Comment #34 from Jonathan Wakely --- Assuming that posix_memalign is slower than malloc (which seems likely), it would be better to fix this in the compiler by defining __STDCPP_DEFAULT_NEW_ALIGNMENT__=8 for i386 solaris, instead of setting

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 --- Comment #33 from Jonathan Wakely --- (IMHO we should never have added float128 to max_align_t for targets where we can't change malloc, but that was decided long ago).

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 --- Comment #32 from Jonathan Wakely --- Yes, this is a well known problem that stddef.h's max_align_t does not agree with malloc on i386 Solaris. Glibc used to have the same problem. Fixing it in the compiler or in operator new seems

[Bug sanitizer/105107] false positive stack-buffer-overflow in ASAN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107 --- Comment #2 from Li Shaohua --- Thanks for your prompt reply. The warning messages only appeared for -O0 and -O3, not for -O1 and -O2. I wonder this might also be an issue.

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug debug/105108] New: incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105108 Bug ID: 105108 Summary: incomplete/incorrect DWARF information at -O1 and -Og after inlining a function returning a constant Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status:

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #29 from Xi Ruoyao --- > Is there somebody who can clarify the MIPS ABI intent? > Also, what does LLVM do? I've CC'ed Yunqiang and Fangrui. And I'll build clang for MIPS to see...

[Bug c++/101030] [9/10 Regression] ICE with -Wconversion and a?:b extension in template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11 Regression] ICE|[9/10 Regression] ICE with

[Bug c++/101030] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with -Wconversion and a?:b extension in template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:511e8b612287ad828c60f2f12c500ccfa26c275c commit r11-9751-g511e8b612287ad828c60f2f12c500ccfa26c275c Author: Marek Polacek

[Bug sanitizer/105107] false positive stack-buffer-overflow in ASAN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/101030] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with -Wconversion and a?:b extension in template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE

[Bug c++/101030] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Wconversion and a?:b extension in template argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101030 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5db9ce171019f8915885cebd5cc5f4101bb926e6 commit r12-7922-g5db9ce171019f8915885cebd5cc5f4101bb926e6 Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/100474] ICE: in diagnose_trait_expr, at cp/constraint.cc:3706

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.3 Known to work|

[Bug rtl-optimization/105091] RTL dse1 remove stack mem storing incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug rtl-optimization/105091] RTL dse1 remove stack mem storing incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091 --- Comment #12 from Jiu Fu Guo --- In dse.cc, "may_be_aliased" affects "can_escape" and then affects "kill_on_calls".

[Bug c++/100474] ICE: in diagnose_trait_expr, at cp/constraint.cc:3706

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100474 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3aaf9bf77047aecc23072fe3db7f13ecff72a7cf commit r12-7921-g3aaf9bf77047aecc23072fe3db7f13ecff72a7cf Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/80334] [5 Regression] Segfault when taking address of copy of unaligned struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80334 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151 commit r12-7920-g6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug target/102772] [12 regression] g++.dg/torture/pr80334.C FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102772 --- Comment #30 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151 commit r12-7920-g6a777ceb0e975f0efc823d2d82e676346f068151 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug c++/104583] [10/11 regression] ICE dolphin-emu at cp/cp-gimplify.cc:746

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104583 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12 regression] ICE |[10/11 regression] ICE

[Bug rtl-optimization/105091] RTL dse1 remove stack mem storing incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091 --- Comment #11 from Jiu Fu Guo --- Find one difference between trunk and r12-656: On trunk: tree expr = MEM_EXPR (mem); where mem is (mem/f/c:DI (plus:DI (reg/f:DI 110 sfp) (const_int 32 [0x20])) [3 GOTMP.2[0].x.__values+0 S8

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #28 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #27) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23) > > > struct A { double a; int : 0; double b; }; > > For MIPS I've done some experiment with this and the result

[Bug sanitizer/105107] New: false positive stack-buffer-overflow in ASAN

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105107 Bug ID: 105107 Summary: false positive stack-buffer-overflow in ASAN Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/104583] [10/11/12 regression] ICE dolphin-emu at cp/cp-gimplify.cc:746

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104583 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb commit r12-7919-gf8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug c++/93280] [10 Regression] ICE: in cp_gimplify_expr, at cp /cp-gimplify.c:933 since g:08f594eb399dab06

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93280 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb commit r12-7919-gf8c1f29a0b47b4b4a3c1506678f7ca2ce4b7ffbb Author: Marek Polacek Date:

[Bug target/105068] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.cc:2692 (insn does not satisfy its constraints: ssse3_pshufbv16qi3)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105068 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:00d12a4a0fd56d8e9be1672e5e7637416b27fbb1 commit r11-9750-g00d12a4a0fd56d8e9be1672e5e7637416b27fbb1 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Mon

[Bug rtl-optimization/105091] RTL dse1 remove stack mem storing incorrectly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105091 --- Comment #10 from Jiu Fu Guo --- Created attachment 52718 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52718=edit m.go sub1.go Based on Ian's code, the below code also reproduce this issue. package sub1 func TestBits(callback

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #27 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23) > struct A { double a; int : 0; double b; }; For MIPS I've done some experiment with this and the result (with N64 ABI) is: With GCC trunk, G++ trunk, and GCC

[Bug target/104796] ABI change is not mentioned in HTML changelog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104796 Bug 104796 depends on bug 102024, which changed state. Bug 102024 Summary: [12 Regression] zero width bitfields and ABIs https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 What|Removed |Added

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug c++/105106] Dependent invocation with defaulted NTTP lambda fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105106 --- Comment #1 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña --- There is implementation divergence in the resulting closure type(s): https://godbolt.org/z/W98r49o8s.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #25 from Jakub Jelinek --- Sorry, apparently I must have misread the mmix below mips as being mips too.

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #24 from Hans-Peter Nilsson --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #23) > CCing MIPS maintainers on this (and also LoongArch, while there is no ABI > incompatibility for a new port, it is perhaps something to discuss and >

[Bug libquadmath/105101] incorrect rounding for sqrtq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/105099] [9/10/11/12 Regression] In lookup of namespace name qualifiers only namespaces should be considered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105099 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.1, 11.2.1, 12.0,

[Bug tree-optimization/97456] [10/11 Regression] An incorrect optimization causes a function to always return the same value when using -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dlong at cadence dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/105071] [9 Regression] Incorrect code with -Os and complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/97456] [10/11 Regression] An incorrect optimization causes a function to always return the same value when using -flto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97456 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f commit r9-1-g1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f Author: Martin Jambor

[Bug middle-end/105071] [9 Regression] Incorrect code with -Os and complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Martin Jambor : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f commit r9-1-g1dc4bed43760c4e291e072aa0c8c450f5775e25f Author: Martin Jambor

[Bug c++/105106] New: Dependent invocation with defaulted NTTP lambda fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105106 Bug ID: 105106 Summary: Dependent invocation with defaulted NTTP lambda fails Product: gcc Version: 9.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: rejects-valid Severity: normal

[Bug libquadmath/105101] incorrect rounding for sqrtq

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105101 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libquadmath/78415] sqrtq does not round correctly when round mode is upward

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78415 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/104796] ABI change is not mentioned in HTML changelog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104796 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/105105] New: Fortran IEEE support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105105 Bug ID: 105105 Summary: Fortran IEEE support Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: fortran

[Bug fortran/102043] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses, gfortran.dg/vector_subscript_1.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #42 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 52717 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52717=edit hack to rewrite all ARRA_REFs This shows a simple hack emitting *( + offset) from gfc_build_array_ref. That

[Bug gcov-profile/105063] [GCOV] Ability to map .gcda paths

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- > > But it will remain to be something like: > > .string "/home/user/t.gcda Well, -fprofile-prefix-map is about the mapping of the source file. So what exactly is your problem? Are the long

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hp at gcc dot gnu.org,

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102024 --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, to sum up: aarch64, arm, x86-64 and riscv (last one since GCC 10 already) do ignore zero width bit-fields in argument/return value passing decisions and so have a C ABI incompatibility from earlier GCC

[Bug target/104796] ABI change is not mentioned in HTML changelog

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104796 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/592522.html

[Bug middle-end/105071] [9 Regression] Incorrect code with -Os and complex

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105071 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- I have asked for permission to backport the fix in https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-March/592520.html

[Bug c++/105099] In lookup of namespace name qualifiers only namespaces should be considered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105099 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Based on the issue submission date, Clark was probably talking about GCC 3.1 or similar. So maybe this is a regression since the new C++ parser was introduced.

[Bug c++/105099] In lookup of namespace name qualifiers only namespaces should be considered

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105099 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-03-30 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug gcov-profile/105063] [GCOV] Ability to map .gcda paths

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105063 --- Comment #2 from vit9696 --- Sure, the example is published on godbolt, but for completeness: int main() {} gcc -fprofile-arcs -S t.c -o t.s cat t.s | grep gcda Adding the mentioned arguments (e.g. -fprofile-prefix-map=/home/user=/test)

[Bug fortran/102043] [9/10/11/12 Regression] Wrong array types used for negative stride accesses, gfortran.dg/vector_subscript_1.f90 FAILs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102043 --- Comment #41 from Richard Biener --- -- random ideas dumping below -- so reading about ISO_Fortran_binding.h it seems to be that a base of the object isn't readily available and making it available would require quite some computation.

[Bug target/104853] [RISC-V] -march=rv64g not including extension Zifencei

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104853 Kito Cheng changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-03-30 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/105077] The std::bad_array_new_length is not thrown for some new array scenarios.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105077 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- It's the same. In both cases the compiler fails to check if the size expression is erroneous, and calls operator new(n) with a bad value that causes a std::bad_alloc exception. I'm both cases, the

[Bug sanitizer/105093] [9/10 Regression] ICE in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at expr.c:7607 since r6-3529-gf11a7b6d57f6fcba

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105093 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |9.5 Summary|ICE in

  1   2   >