[Bug fortran/104382] Finalization of parent components not compliant with standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104382 --- Comment #5 from paul.richard.thomas at gmail dot com --- Hi Thomas, My stepping out of gfortran activities has been for rather longer than I expected. I had hoped to have completed the finalization work by now and to have got on with fixing

[Bug tree-optimization/106322] [12/13 Regression] tree-vectorize: Wrong code at O2 level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working) since r12-2404-ga1d27560770818c5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322 --- Comment #44 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #43) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #42) > > I think this goes wrong in vectorizable_operation which does > > > > if (using_emulated_vectors_p > > &

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #10 from Michael Hudson-Doyle --- FWIW, I see a similar error on ppc64el with what looks like a similar cause. (I also see other errors that do not go away with s/O3/O2/ so that might be something slightly different). O3: (kinetic

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #9 from Michael Hudson-Doyle --- I uploaded the object file with the bad code to https://people.canonical.com/~mwh/e_j1f128.os.

[Bug target/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #12 from Lance Fredrickson --- I will send an email to their mailing list and inform them of this thread as well. I've queried on buildroot mailing list and irc if anyone uses aarch64 + uclibc-ng. thanks for your attention and troub

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #8 from Michael Hudson-Doyle --- I just changed z = xx * xx; to z = math_opt_barrier(xx * xx); which perhaps isn't sufficient. But my reading of the assembly is that the issue is that some of the math code is being

[Bug target/106545] peephole.md seems like it should not exist

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106545 Vineet Gupta changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vineetg at rivosinc dot com --- Comment

[Bug fortran/106579] ieee_signaling_nan problem in fortran on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug target/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Component|libstdc++

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #10 from Lance Fredrickson --- (gdb) disassemble 0x7fb7eae3b8 Dump of assembler code for function (anonymous namespace)::get_global(): 0x007fb7eae3b8 <+0>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 0x007fb7eae3bc <+4>: mov

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- disassemble 0x7fb7eae3b8 Which was: 0x007fb7eae3fc <+8>: bl 0x7fb7eae3b8 <(anonymous namespace)::get_global()> I am still trying to figure out how the TLS address was formed here.

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #8 from Lance Fredrickson --- Here is 'info proc mappings' (gdb) info proc mappings process 16896 Mapped address spaces: Start Addr End Addr Size Offset objfile 0x555000 0x556000

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I'd suggest looking at the generated assembly. I don't know exactly what you mean by "putting a math_opt_barrier on this line"; it would need to be used in a way that ensures a dependency

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Lance Fredrickson from comment #6) > info mem gives > > (gdb) info mem > Using memory regions provided by the target. > There are no memory regions defined. Sorry, I mean "info proc mappings"

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #6 from Lance Fredrickson --- info mem gives (gdb) info mem Using memory regions provided by the target. There are no memory regions defined.

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- uclibc must have some ordering issue when it comes to atexit and shared libraries and TLS. Can you also do: "info mem"

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #4 from Lance Fredrickson --- Here you go. (gdb) info registers x0 0xff6fea06f01097094268656 x1 0x7fb7ffa6c0548547831488 x2 0x0 0 x3 0x0

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Lance Fredrickson from comment #2) > Here is the disassemble > > (gdb) disassemble > Dump of assembler code for function _ZSt18uncaught_exceptionv: >0x007fb7eae2a8 <+0>: stp x29

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 --- Comment #2 from Lance Fredrickson --- Here is the disassemble (gdb) disassemble Dump of assembler code for function _ZSt18uncaught_exceptionv: 0x007fb7eae2a8 <+0>: stp x29, x30, [sp, #-16]! 0x007fb7eae2ac <+4>: mov

[Bug libstdc++/106581] [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #6 from Michael Hudson-Doyle --- Are there any tips as to how to diagnose this further? I tried putting a math_opt_barrier on this line: https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob;f=sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/e_j1l.c;h=54c457681ae

[Bug libstdc++/106581] New: [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106581 Bug ID: 106581 Summary: [Aarch64] libstdc++ segfault at end of execution Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug target/96786] rs6000: We output the wrong .machine for -mcpu=7450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96786 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/106458] [12/13 Regression] glibc's malloc/tst-scratch_buffer.c test is miscompiled with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458 --- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2022-08-10 9:30 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > hen I try with a cc1 cross I see > >> ./cc1 -quiet t.i -fpreprocessed -O2 -g -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline >> -fmerge-all-constants -fr

[Bug target/96786] rs6000: We output the wrong .machine for -mcpu=7450

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96786 Erhard F. changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erhard_f at mailbox dot org --- Comment #2 f

[Bug ipa/106061] [13 Regression] during GIMPLE pass: einline ICE: verify_cgraph_node failed (edge points to wrong declaration) with -Og since r13-1204-gd68d366425369649

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106061 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||muecker at gwdg dot de --- Comment #3 f

[Bug sanitizer/106580] ICE with UBSan and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106580 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug middle-end/106492] [OpenMP] ICE in #pragma omp for simd and bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106492 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:68b8c55c7e7de8438ea97f600cdccac826b8e67d commit r12-8678-g68b8c55c7e7de8438ea97f600cdccac826b8e67d Author: Tobias Burnus

[Bug sanitizer/106580] New: ICE with UBSan and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106580 Bug ID: 106580 Summary: ICE with UBSan and -fsanitize-undefined-trap-on-error Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/106458] [12/13 Regression] glibc's malloc/tst-scratch_buffer.c test is miscompiled with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458 --- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2022-08-10 1:38 p.m., dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458 > > --- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- > On 2022-08-10 9:30 a

[Bug fortran/106579] ieee_signaling_nan problem in fortran on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/106458] [12/13 Regression] glibc's malloc/tst-scratch_buffer.c test is miscompiled with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458 --- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2022-08-10 9:30 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > You could try if -fno-tree-pre reproduces it also before the change. It doesn't.

[Bug fortran/106576] Finalization of temporaries from functions not occuring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106576 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Koenig --- There currently is a c.l.f. thread on this, with this test case. Although what nagfor and xlf are doing makes sense, it does not (to me) follow from the language of the standard. https://groups.google.com/g

[Bug c/90885] GCC should warn about 2^16 and 2^32 and 2^64 [-Wxor-used-as-pow]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90885 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug middle-end/106578] spurious -Wuse-after-free=2 after conditional free() when not optimizing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106578 --- Comment #3 from Gökçe Aydos --- > using 'tmp' instead makes it properly fire. Dear Richard, maybe I misunderstood what you meant with *fire*. If `tmp` is used then gcc does not *fire* any warning and works correctly, right?

[Bug fortran/106579] New: ieee_signaling_nan problem in fortran on powerpc64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106579 Bug ID: 106579 Summary: ieee_signaling_nan problem in fortran on powerpc64 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/106571] Implement -Wsection diag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106571 --- Comment #5 from Boris --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #4) > Boris: what does DECLARE_PER_CPU() expand into? Are there other attributes > that could be usefully checked for mismatch between decl and def? Unfortunately, DECLARE_P

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- It's possible code is being moved across SET_RESTORE_ROUNDL, in which case maybe math_opt_barrier needs to be used in glibc code to prevent that movement.

[Bug tree-optimization/106506] [13 Regression] g++.dg/opt/pr94589-2.C FAILS after enabling floats in VRP

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106506 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-08-10 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug tree-optimization/106458] [12/13 Regression] glibc's malloc/tst-scratch_buffer.c test is miscompiled with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458 --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net --- On 2022-08-10 9:30 a.m., rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > When I try with a cc1 cross I see > >> ./cc1 -quiet t.i -fpreprocessed -O2 -g -std=gnu11 -fgnu89-inline >> -fmerge-all-constants -f

[Bug middle-end/106578] spurious -Wuse-after-free=2 after conditional free()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106578 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-08-10 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug tree-optimization/106513] [10/11/12/13 Regression] bswap pass misses that >>56 for signed types can be replicate the sign bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106513 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab2ca2dbd528f0564b80fa0e6eda96e0237742bc commit r12-8677-gab2ca2dbd528f0564b80fa0e6eda96e0237742bc Author: Richard Biener

[Bug tree-optimization/106513] [10/11/12/13 Regression] bswap pass misses that >>56 for signed types can be replicate the sign bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106513 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f675afa4eeac9910a2c085a95aa04d6d9f2fd8d6 commit r13-2013-gf675afa4eeac9910a2c085a95aa04d6d9f2fd8d6 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug lto/106334] [13 Regression] lto -g ICE in dwarf2out_register_external_die at dwarf2out.cc:6072

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106334 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4769ac6c5dfde2810a0266fe388211edc644e623 commit r12-8676-g4769ac6c5dfde2810a0266fe388211edc644e623 Author: Richard Biene

[Bug lto/106540] [10/11/12 Regression] lto -g ICE in dwarf2out_register_external_die at dwarf2out.cc:6076

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106540 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4769ac6c5dfde2810a0266fe388211edc644e623 commit r12-8676-g4769ac6c5dfde2810a0266fe388211edc644e623 Author: Richard Biener

[Bug middle-end/106578] spurious -Wuse-after-free=2 after conditional free()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106578 --- Comment #1 from Gökçe Aydos --- FYI: [`realloc` behavior in the C11 standard](http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c11/n1570.html#7.22.3.5)

[Bug middle-end/106578] New: spurious -Wuse-after-free=2 after conditional free()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106578 Bug ID: 106578 Summary: spurious -Wuse-after-free=2 after conditional free() Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Comp

[Bug tree-optimization/106570] [12/13 Regression] DCE sometimes fails with depending if statements since r12-2305-g398572c1544d8b75

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106570 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Priority

[Bug target/106524] [12/13 Regression] ICE in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 (error: unrecognizable insn) since r12-4349-ge36206c9940d22.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106524 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug tree-optimization/106514] [12/13 Regression] ranger slowness in path query

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106514 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-08-10 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/106513] [10/11/12/13 Regression] bswap pass misses that >>56 for signed types can be replicate the sign bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106513 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Assignee|unassigned at gc

[Bug analyzer/106147] RFE: -fanalyzer could complain about some cases of infinite loops and infinite recursion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106147 --- Comment #3 from David Malcolm --- See also https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106203#c1 (w.r.t possible revamp of how source locations are tracked in the analyzer, given that an infinite loop might not contain any statements)

[Bug analyzer/106203] Allow to emit diagnostics at return edges for the exit point as well as the call site

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106203 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- I've been prototyping an implementation of PR 106147 (infinite loop detection), and in some cases there aren't any statements at all for my warnings, just location_t values (if that). So as part of that I'v

[Bug ipa/101839] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Hang in C++ code with -fdevirtualize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101839 --- Comment #10 from Jan Hubicka --- Created attachment 53430 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53430&action=edit Patch I am testing

[Bug tree-optimization/106513] [10/11/12/13 Regression] bswap pass misses that >>56 for signed types can be replicate the sign bit

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106513 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Richard B

[Bug tree-optimization/106458] [12/13 Regression] glibc's malloc/tst-scratch_buffer.c test is miscompiled with gcc-12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106458 --- Comment #11 from Richard Biener --- The dump difference is easily explained by taming PRE when -ftree-vectorize is on, it's not a "real" difference. When I try with a cc1 cross I see > ./cc1 -quiet t.i -fpreprocessed -O2 -g -std=gnu11 -fgn

[Bug ipa/101839] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Hang in C++ code with -fdevirtualize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101839 --- Comment #9 from Jan Hubicka --- Thanks for looking into this. What happens here is that we start working from a call where we know that outer_type is BA. We correctly find the BA::type and notice that it is final and thus we do not need to

[Bug c++/106395] [12/13 regression] [mingw] "redeclared without dllimport attribute: previous dllimport ignored" on C++ friend since r12-299-ga0fdff3cf33f72

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106395 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-08-10 CC|

[Bug c++/106369] [12 Regression] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.cc:5515 since r12-2975-g32c3a75390623a

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106369 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Known to work|

[Bug target/106577] [13 Regression] during RTL pass: subreg3 ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 (unrecognizable insn) with -O -mavx since r13-2006-ga56c1641e9d25e46

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106577 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0

[Bug lto/106328] Build doesn't respect -j N flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 10 Aug 2022, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 > > --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- > > Magically only with recent GNU make, ot

[Bug lto/106328] Build doesn't respect -j N flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 --- Comment #9 from Martin Liška --- > Magically only with recent GNU make, otherwise needs proper prefixed > rules in the lto-wrapper generated makefile which I don't think we do. Wait, the cooperation works with older GNU make if a Makefile u

[Bug lto/106328] Build doesn't respect -j N flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 10 Aug 2022, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 > > Martin Liška changed: > >What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/106322] [12/13 Regression] tree-vectorize: Wrong code at O2 level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working) since r12-2404-ga1d27560770818c5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322 --- Comment #43 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #42) > I think this goes wrong in vectorizable_operation which does > > if (using_emulated_vectors_p > && !vect_can_vectorize_without_simd_p (code)) > > t

[Bug tree-optimization/106322] [12/13 Regression] tree-vectorize: Wrong code at O2 level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working) since r12-2404-ga1d27560770818c5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322 --- Comment #42 from Richard Biener --- I think this goes wrong in vectorizable_operation which does if (using_emulated_vectors_p && !vect_can_vectorize_without_simd_p (code)) to guard this but I'm not sure how this slips through?

[Bug c/106571] Implement -Wsection diag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106571 Michael Matz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 f

[Bug lto/106328] Build doesn't respect -j N flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug lto/106328] Build doesn't respect -j N flag

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106328 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Martin Liska : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fed766af32ed6cd371016cc24e931131e19b4eb1 commit r13-2012-gfed766af32ed6cd371016cc24e931131e19b4eb1 Author: Martin Liska Date: Tue

[Bug tree-optimization/101706] bool0^bool1^1 -> bool0 == bool1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101706 Ivan Sorokin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vanyacpp at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/98709] gcc optimizes bitwise operations, but doesn't optimize logical ones

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98709 Ivan Sorokin 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 98709, which changed state. Bug 98709 Summary: gcc optimizes bitwise operations, but doesn't optimize logical ones https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98709 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/106577] [13 Regression] during RTL pass: subreg3 ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 (unrecognizable insn) with -O -mavx since r13-2006-ga56c1641e9d25e46

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106577 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Summary|[13 Regression] d

[Bug target/106577] New: [13 Regression] during RTL pass: subreg3 ICE: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 (unrecognizable insn) with -O -mavx

/gcc-trunk//binary-trunk-r13-2009-20220810070724-gc16d9f78dc8-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-nobootstrap-amd64 Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 13.0.0 20220810 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug modula2/106443] Many 32-bit tests FAIL to link on Solaris/sparcv9

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106443 --- Comment #3 from Gaius Mulley --- Thanks for the report and reminder/patch - I've now pushed the patch to gcc.cc.

[Bug c++/88174] Make __real__ += __val usable in constexpr context.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/55004] [meta-bug] constexpr issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 88174, which changed state. Bug 88174 Summary: Make __real__ += __val usable in constexpr context. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88174 What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/106342] [12/13 Regression] internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.cc:2791 since r12-4240-g2b8453c401b699

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106342 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- commit r13-1955-g2f17f489de47d46626ed85804c3b810547ef550e Author: Ilya Leoshkevich Date: Fri Jul 29 16:14:10 2022 +0200

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps either a quick check that for base ptrs that live in memory gimple_vuse is the same for both statements or if not, do walk_aliased_vdefs with low constant limit? We'd want to stop if we reach the vde

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Or perhaps could we ask the alias oracle in can_remove_asan_check for the *base_checks case if base_addr lives in memory whether base_addr could change in between the stmt in the vector and current stmt, wit

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug tree-optimization/106322] [12/13 Regression] tree-vectorize: Wrong code at O2 level (-fno-tree-vectorize is working) since r12-2404-ga1d27560770818c5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106322 --- Comment #41 from Kewen Lin --- (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #40) > > >diff --git a/gcc/internal-fn.cc b/gcc/internal-fn.cc > > >index d666f67..7d8b4ac2200 100644 > > >--- a/gcc/internal-fn.cc > > >+++ b/gcc/internal-fn.cc > > >@@

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ygribov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug sanitizer/106558] ASan failed to detect a global-buffer-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106558 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Looks like a bug in the sanopt pass. For -O2, we have before sanopt in main: b.0_1 = b; e.2_3 = e; c.5_4 = c; .ASAN_CHECK (7, c.5_4, 8, 8); *c.5_4 = e.2_3; b.7_5 = b; .ASAN_CHECK (7, b.7_5, 4,

[Bug fortran/106576] New: Finalization of temporaries from functions not occuring

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106576 Bug ID: 106576 Summary: Finalization of temporaries from functions not occuring Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prior

[Bug middle-end/106504] [OpenMP] 'for simd linear(i:1)' should be rejected with 'parallel private(i)'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106504 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- There have been discussions about this in several F2Fs. For linear it is desirable to allow private outer var because linear is the implicit behavior of simd iterators and people want to be able to use them

[Bug fortran/104382] Finalization of parent components not compliant with standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104382 Thomas Koenig changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug other/106575] new test case gcc.dg/fold-eqandshift-4.c fails with its introduction in r13-2005-g6fc14f1963dfef

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106575 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/106574] gcc 12 with O3 leads to failures in glibc's y1f128 tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106574 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Michael Hudson-Doyle from comment #3) > Certainly this could be "handled" by bumping the tolerance I guess. Not sure > how to tell if that is appropriate though... You have to look what GCC ac

[Bug rtl-optimization/106187] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level (O0 / O1 are working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187 --- Comment #52 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Mathieu Malaterre from comment #51) > (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #50) > > Fixed on master so far. > > Not clear how this is possible. I reported an issue against gcc-11 which >

[Bug rtl-optimization/106187] armhf: Miscompilation at O2 level (O0 / O1 are working)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106187 --- Comment #51 from Mathieu Malaterre --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #50) > Fixed on master so far. Not clear how this is possible. I reported an issue against gcc-11 which could not be reproduced using gcc-12. Are you saying t

[Bug c++/106572] A programmatic list of all possible compiler warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106572 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- There's also -Wfoo={1,2,3} and the like, not sure what "everything" would be here? The "strictest" level (if the levels order by strictness?)