[Bug sanitizer/107963] Support __attribute__((disable_sanitizer_instrumentation))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107963 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-November/237787.html If I read this correctly, there is no reason for a new attribute for gcc.

[Bug c/107963] New: Support __attribute__((disable_sanitizer_instrumentation))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107963 Bug ID: 107963 Summary: Support __attribute__((disable_sanitizer_instrumentation)) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/105474] GCC fails to bootstrap with --disable-libstdcxx

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105474 --- Comment #3 from Zopolis0 --- If disabling the stdlib but not disabling bootstrapping causes bootstrapping to break, the user should probably be notified of this before it breaks randomly.

[Bug tree-optimization/71383] Misoptimized branch with inline assembly code.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71383 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- If you marked the variable as used the branch comes back. This definitely should be referenced too. https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Common-Variable-Attributes.html#index-used-variable-attribute

[Bug c/107738] Top-level inline-asm is not well documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107738 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-12-04 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/33932] miscalculation of asm labels with -g3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33932 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||miladfarca at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug c/107736] call to a function, generated by inline asm, is off by one byte

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107736 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pi

[Bug translation/89915] clean up and canonicalize wording in params.def

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89915 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #10 from Ruslan Nikolaev --- The latter example seems to work well for both gcc and clang. The behavior is also consistent for both explicit and implicit constructors. Thank you for clarifying that it was not a bug!

[Bug c++/107962] GCC allows constexpr copy construction despite uninitialized member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107962 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug middle-end/79632] params.def should not contain redundant comments

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79632 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |middle-end Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/107962] New: GCC allows constexpr copy construction despite uninitialized member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107962 Bug ID: 107962 Summary: GCC allows constexpr copy construction despite uninitialized member Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: accepts-in

[Bug target/39027] double floating point suffix of 'd' and 'D' not accepted

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39027 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- r0-92283-g839a3b8ab591c7

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #9 from Ruslan Nikolaev --- Interestingly, if I change the code a little bit and have a pair in the constructor rather than two arguments, gcc seems to compile the code: #include #include struct PairPtr { PairPtr() {} P

[Bug c/107961] BFloat16 types are not documented in "Half-Precision Floating Point"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107961 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12/13 Regression] |BFloat16 types are not

[Bug c/107961] New: [11/12/13 Regression] BFloat16 types are not documented in "Half-Precision Floating Point"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107961 Bug ID: 107961 Summary: [11/12/13 Regression] BFloat16 types are not documented in "Half-Precision Floating Point" Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/107960] New: opt-gather.awk seems to ignore lines lines that start with whitespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107960 Bug ID: 107960 Summary: opt-gather.awk seems to ignore lines lines that start with whitespace Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: document

[Bug c++/41874] Incorrect "dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules" warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41874 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||6.5.0 CC|

[Bug libstdc++/107940] temp_directory_path testcase broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107940 laurent.alfonsi at linaro dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Re

[Bug target/107678] [13 Regression] Segfault in aarch64_fallback_frame_state when running SVE code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107678 laurent.alfonsi at linaro dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||laurent.alfonsi at l

[Bug fortran/107870] A possible typo in the documentation of 'FLOOR'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107870 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu

[Bug c++/60027] Problem with braced-init-lists and explicit ctors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv

[Bug c++/60027] Problem with braced-init-lists and explicit ctors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||konstantin.vladimirov@gmail

[Bug c++/97220] Overload resolution works wrong when implicit conversion not exists

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97220 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin

[Bug c++/102247] Overload resolution with brace-init is ambiguous when it shouldn't be

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102247 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 60027 ***

[Bug c++/60027] Problem with braced-init-lists and explicit ctors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ldionne.2 at gmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pi

[Bug c++/60027] Problem with braced-init-lists and explicit ctors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60027 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nruslan_devel at yahoo dot com --- Comme

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > I think GCC and MSVC are correct here: > [over.match.list]/16.3.1.7 > . In copy-listinitialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the > initialization is

[Bug fortran/107899] ICE in resolve_deallocate_expr, at fortran/resolve.cc:7576

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107899 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|

[Bug c++/102000] Defaulted consteval default constructor that performs no initialization is not rejected

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102000 Hubert Tong changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com --- Comment #4 f

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Actually I think there is some disagreement if dcl.init.list/3.4 (that is aggregate initialization) applies ... Because if I make the two fields private, then gcc (and MSVC) accepts it ...

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- I think GCC and MSVC are correct here: [over.match.list]/16.3.1.7 . In copy-listinitialization, if an explicit constructor is chosen, the initialization is ill-formed. [ Note: This differs from other situati

[Bug modula2/107959] Incorrect aggregate constant type causes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107959 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug modula2/107959] Incorrect aggregate constant type causes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107959 --- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley --- Now fixed in git. $ gm2 -fiso badipv4.mod badipv4.mod:7:12: error: In procedure ‘ForeachIndiceInIndexDo’: expecting CHAR datatype and not ‘127’ a ‘Modula-2 base Z’ in the 0th component of the ‘IPV4’ array

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Obvious workaround is to do: p = PairPtr{ a, b };

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/107958] Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note MSVC (with /std:c++latest) also rejects the source that is in comment #0 for the same reason as GCC: (39): error C2593: 'operator =' is ambiguous (25): note: could be 'PairPtr &PairPtr::operator =(cons

[Bug modula2/107959] New: Incorrect aggregate constant type causes ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107959 Bug ID: 107959 Summary: Incorrect aggregate constant type causes ICE Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/107958] New: Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107958 Bug ID: 107958 Summary: Ambiguity with uniform initialization in overloaded operator and explicit constructor Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/91316] Derived type finalization failing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/107957] New: Missed optimization in access to upper-half of a variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107957 Bug ID: 107957 Summary: Missed optimization in access to upper-half of a variable Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug c++/103081] [ICE] with "using enum"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.3 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Palka

[Bug c++/103081] [ICE] with "using enum"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103081 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b3912122c9dfaba6c8229e8f095885f69782ceda commit r13-4477-gb3912122c9dfaba6c8229e8f095885f69782ceda Author: Patrick Palka Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/107956] New: [12/13 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in contains_struct_check (tree.h:3641) with -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow -ftree-slp-vectorize -fexceptions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107956 Bug ID: 107956 Summary: [12/13 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in contains_struct_check (tree.h:3641) with -fsanitize=float-cast-overflow -ftree-slp-vectorize -fexception

[Bug lto/107078] LTO is causing that firebird build is core dumping

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107078 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sam at gentoo dot org --- Comment #19 from

[Bug libstdc++/66146] call_once not C++11-compliant on ppc64le

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66146 --- Comment #54 from Jonathan Wakely --- Because it would be an ABI break. It's a good option if backwards compatibility is not required, I've suggested it before.

[Bug c++/107955] ICE: trying to capture ‘ARGS#0’ in instantiation of generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107955 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/100295] Internal compiler error from generic lambda capturing parameter pack and expanding it in if constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100295 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||onebit74 at gmail dot com --- Comment #

[Bug c++/107955] New: ICE: trying to capture ‘ARGS#0’ in instantiation of generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107955 Bug ID: 107955 Summary: ICE: trying to capture ‘ARGS#0’ in instantiation of generic lambda Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/91316] Derived type finalization failing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91316 --- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to Paul Thomas from comment #1) > I notice that this is missing from the list of dependencies of PR37336, for > which a wider fix will be submitted this afternoon. > > Best regards > > Paul I have

[Bug c/107954] Support -std=c23/gnu23 as aliases of -std=c2x/gnu2x

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107954 Jamaika changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lukaszcz18 at wp dot pl --- Comment #2 from J