[Bug gcov-profile/96092] Should --coverage respect -ffile-prefix-map?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092 --- Comment #6 from Martin Liška --- I'm planning working on that in the next weeks.

[Bug middle-end/102153] Better expansion of __builtin_*_overflow should be done

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102153 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug middle-end/102153] Better expansion of __builtin_*_overflow should be done

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102153 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- So this will not fully be done as the way addv, etc. are defined to be jumps instead of sets. I will at least move internal-fn.c over to using emit_store_flag_force away from do_compare_rtx_and_jump . At l

[Bug middle-end/102153] Better expansion of __builtin_*_overflow should be done

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102153 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/102149] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/102153] New: Better expansion of __builtin_*_overflow should be done

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102153 Bug ID: 102153 Summary: Better expansion of __builtin_*_overflow should be done Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: internal-improvement,

[Bug target/99591] Improving __builtin_add_overflow performance on x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99591 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Looks fixed for GCC 11+. signed2_overflow(short, short): .LFB0: .cfi_startproc addw%si, %di seto%al ret signed1_overflow

[Bug target/99591] Improving __builtin_add_overflow performance on x86-64

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99591 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.0 Known to work|

[Bug rtl-optimization/97856] Missed optimization: repeated call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97856 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug rtl-optimization/97856] Missed optimization: repeated call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97856 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1) > Confirmed. basic-block reordering decides to duplicate the block: Yes there are a few other bugs where we like to duplicate the return block I have seen too.

[Bug tree-optimization/102152] [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in cprop_operand, at tree-ssa-dom.c:1715

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jeffreyalaw at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug tree-optimization/102152] [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in cprop_operand, at tree-ssa-dom.c:1715

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/102124] [11/12 Regression] -ftree-loop-vectorize Causing Data To Lose Sign Bit on AARCH64 Platform

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102124 --- Comment #7 from Tomas Chang --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Created attachment 51377 [details] > gcc12-pr102124.patch > > Untested fix. After applying this patch on GCC 11.2.1 code base, I re-built GCC on my AARCH64 box (

[Bug tree-optimization/102152] New: [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in cprop_operand, at tree-ssa-dom.c:1715

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102152 Bug ID: 102152 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in cprop_operand, at tree-ssa-dom.c:1715 Product: gcc Version: 12.0

[Bug rtl-optimization/79858] Explain to translators what %smode means

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79858 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/79357] Doubling a single complex float gives inefficient code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79357 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||101926 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug driver/49631] Driver --help should use common help code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49631 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-09-01 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/102151] Spurious warning by -Warray-bounds when allocating with flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102151 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- I think the malloc needs to be at least the sizeof which is why it is complaining.

[Bug c/102103] missing warning comparing array address to null

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102103 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||patch --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor

[Bug c/102151] Spurious warning by -Warray-bounds when allocating with flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102151 Niibe Yutaka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gniibe at fsij dot org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug c/102151] New: Spurious warning by -Warray-bounds when allocating with flexible array member

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102151 Bug ID: 102151 Summary: Spurious warning by -Warray-bounds when allocating with flexible array member Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug middle-end/102133] [12 Regression] ICE in set_rtl building libgcc __muldc3 for 32-bit SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102133 --- Comment #12 from Hongtao.liu --- Fixed in GCC12.

[Bug middle-end/102133] [12 Regression] ICE in set_rtl building libgcc __muldc3 for 32-bit SPARC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102133 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by hongtao Liu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:508fa61b6319377e48cbee98da221aacd475fd10 commit r12-3276-g508fa61b6319377e48cbee98da221aacd475fd10 Author: liuhongt Date: Tue Aug

[Bug inline-asm/59615] "asm goto" output or at least clobbered operands

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59615 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug inline-asm/94522] Enhancement request: asm goto with outputs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94522 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/102150] New: Speculative execution of inline assembly causes divide error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102150 Bug ID: 102150 Summary: Speculative execution of inline assembly causes divide error Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/89140] libiberty/pex-unix.c fails to compile in aarch64-to-x86_64 cross build

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89140 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >the configure script for libiberty finds that getrusage is not available but >wait4 is. Both should be there.

[Bug bootstrap/62009] [5 Regression] Bootstrap failure in vec.h::splice

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62009 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build, ice-on-valid-code Summ

[Bug bootstrap/70242] GCC bootstrap failed on x86_64 using "--with-build-config=bootstrap-O3"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70242 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- I was able to do this on the trunk last week and it did not fail.

[Bug bootstrap/52847] "case" shell quoting problem in top-level makefile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52847 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/51748] gcc.misc-tests/linkage.c fails on mips64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51748 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 51390 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51390&action=edit Patch

[Bug c++/96286] Unhelpful errors after a failed static_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96286 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/36274] Please improve usage of template libs.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36274 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- I think C++ modules will fix this.

[Bug tree-optimization/102149] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Started with r12-3222-g89f33f44addbf9853bc3e6677db1fa941713cb6c > but got fixed with r12-3250-g67927342290c61d7e054430f1d7a7281f1f97fae > So I think we just want

[Bug libstdc++/58876] No non-virtual-dtor warning in std::unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876 Harald van Dijk changed: What|Removed |Added CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/102149] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/102149] wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102149 --- Comment #1 from Qirun Zhang --- My bisection points to g:89f33f44addbf9853bc3e6677d

[Bug tree-optimization/102149] New: wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: qrzhang at gatech dot edu Target Milestone: --- Seems to be a recent regression. $ gcc-trunk -v gcc version 12.0.0 20210831 (experimental) [master revision 5e57bacf6f3

[Bug fortran/100950] ICE in output_constructor_regular_field, at varasm.c:5514

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100950 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e4cb3bb9ac11b4126ffa718287dd509a4b10a658 commit r12-3273-ge4cb3bb9ac11b4126ffa718287dd509a4b10a658 Author: Harald Anlauf Date:

[Bug c++/55722] failed static_assert won't trigger a second time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55722 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55004 Bug 55004 depends on bug 92193, which changed state. Bug 92193 Summary: Poor diagnostics when a constexpr function call follows a failed static_assert https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92193 What|Removed

[Bug c++/92193] Poor diagnostics when a constexpr function call follows a failed static_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92193 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/56985] gcc/fortran/resolve.c:920: "'%s' in cannot appear in COMMON ..."

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56985 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu.

[Bug c/102148] New: ppc64le: homogeneous float arguments are not passed correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102148 Bug ID: 102148 Summary: ppc64le: homogeneous float arguments are not passed correctly Product: gcc Version: 8.4.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/102015] [missed optimization] Small memory overhead in _Rb_tree_impl (fix would require ABI break)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug libstdc++/77402] Use EBO for _Rb_tree_impl::_M_key_compare

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77402 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/102015] [missed optimization] Small memory overhead in _Rb_tree_impl (fix would require ABI break)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102015 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- In https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-August/053108.html I proposed dropping C++98 support for the gnu-versioned-namespace, which would allow us to fix this by using [[__no_unique_address__]]. N

[Bug libstdc++/101739] Some function parameters in missing uglify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- For consistency (and to avoid reports like this one) we might want to uglify them anyway. But it's not a correctness issue, just stylistic.

[Bug libstdc++/64399] g++ does not diagnose when upcasting owning pointer (e.g. unique_ptr) with non-virtual destructor

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64399 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug libstdc++/58876] No non-virtual-dtor warning in std::unique_ptr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58876 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/98421] std::span does not detect invalid range in Debug Mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/98421] std::span does not detect invalid range in Debug Mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ef7becc9c8a48804d3fd9dac032f7b33e561a612 commit r12-3272-gef7becc9c8a48804d3fd9dac032f7b33e561a612 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug middle-end/102126] Wrong optimization of FP multiplication and division by 1 and -1 with -ftrapping-math when an underflow is possible

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102126 --- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- I think that documentation should be changed to say it's primarily about flags, not traps, with trapping being considered much more of a legacy feature rather than something it's normally

[Bug target/102107] protocol register (r12) corrupted before a tail call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107 --- Comment #13 from Segher Boessenkool --- /* If we need to save CR, put it into r12 or r11. Choose r12 except when r12 will be needed by out-of-line gpr save. */ cr_save_regno = ((DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_AIX || DEFAULT_ABI == ABI_ELFv2)

[Bug gcov-profile/96092] Should --coverage respect -ffile-prefix-map?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96092 Andrew Psaltis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||apsaltis at vmware dot com --- Comment

[Bug c++/12672] Evals template defaults args that it should not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12672 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f1e7319956928712e8bf4893ebdfeeb6441099ee commit r12-3271-gf1e7319956928712e8bf4893ebdfeeb6441099ee Author: Patrick Palka Date: T

[Bug fortran/102145] TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement C

[Bug libstdc++/101739] Some function parameters in missing uglify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739 --- Comment #2 from 康桓瑋 --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > These changes are not strictly necessary. > > "base" is a reserved name, because of move_iterator::base() etc. > > and "i" is a reserved name, because of operator""i()

[Bug target/102140] [12 Regression] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn, at recog.c:2670 (insn does not satisfy its constraints) with -Og -fipa-cp -fno-tree-ccp -fno-tree-ter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102140 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug libstdc++/101739] Some function parameters in missing uglify

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101739 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- These changes are not strictly necessary. "base" is a reserved name, because of move_iterator::base() etc. and "i" is a reserved name, because of operator""i() in . So users cannot define those as macro

[Bug libstdc++/102074] include/bits/atomic_timed_wait.h:215: possible missing return ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102074 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:763eb1f19239ebb19c0f87590a4f02300c02c52b commit r12-3263-g763eb1f19239ebb19c0f87590a4f02300c02c52b Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug target/102125] (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) missed optimization. memcpy not needed operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125 --- Comment #6 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > One common source of missed optimizations is gimple_fold_builtin_memory_op > which has [...] Yes, this is the source of the problem. I wonder if this shoul

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865 --- Comment #16 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to wschmidt from comment #14) > I disagree with that.  You should use __VSX__ && _ARCH_PWR9 to check for > P9 vector support, etc.  The __POWERn_VECTOR__ things really are not > great and I

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865 --- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to HaoChen Gui from comment #9) > For this example, let's suppose that we set mcpu=power8 and mno-vsx in the > command line. Thus, _ARCH_PWR8 should be defined as mcpu=power8. But if the > Po

[Bug libstdc++/98421] std::span does not detect invalid range in Debug Mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98421 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865 --- Comment #14 from wschmidt at linux dot ibm.com --- On 8/31/21 11:09 AM, bergner at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865 > > --- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner --- > (In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Mach

[Bug libstdc++/98033] ABA problem in atomic wait

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98033 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Keywords|

[Bug libstdc++/98978] Consider packing _M_Engaged in the tail padding of T in optional<>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98978 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Last reconfirmed|

[Bug bootstrap/53504] configure script of platform TLS support.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53504 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Or maybe it's OK. The test is not trying to find out if threading works, only whether TLS works. If creating or joining the thread fails, there is probably a deeper issue. If creating and joining the thread

[Bug c++/92193] Poor diagnostics when a constexpr function call follows a failed static_assert

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92193 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jason Merrill : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9aeadd8c319d5d940fa4dc91a393fc2959d27719 commit r12-3258-g9aeadd8c319d5d940fa4dc91a393fc2959d27719 Author: Jason Merrill Date: Mo

[Bug libstdc++/97912] Get rid of location-invariant requirement in std::function small object optimisation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97912 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug bootstrap/53504] configure script of platform TLS support.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53504 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-08-31 Status|UNCONFIR

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101865 --- Comment #13 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho from comment #12) > There is a chance, that my previous comment is wrong with regards the > generation of VSX instructions for Power8. > > I don't know what th

[Bug rtl-optimization/102147] IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit register size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147 --- Comment #2 from David Edelsohn --- Created attachment 51389 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51389&action=edit Pre-processed subset of tree-vect-slp.c $ gcc -O2 -fno-exceptions produces different conflicts and register

[Bug target/102107] protocol register (r12) corrupted before a tail call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/102147] IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit register size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/102147] New: IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit register size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102147 Bug ID: 102147 Summary: IRA dependent on 32-bit vs 64-bit register size Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/102146] New: [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102146 Bug ID: 102146 Summary: [11 regression] several test cases fails after r11-8940 Product: gcc Version: 11.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug libstdc++/31464] Extension request: publicly visible forward-declaration headers for and all STL containers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31464 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/102137] class template argument deduction with template template parameter allows explicit deduction guide

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102137 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/102145] New: TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102145 Bug ID: 102145 Summary: TKR mismatches with -pedantic: -fallow-argument-mismatch does not degrade errors to warnings Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Sta

[Bug c++/102098] ICE when #include with -fmodules-ts -std=c++20 since r11-7530-g1e5cdb9f896fb220

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102098 --- Comment #5 from Devourer Station --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Please attach the source files.. I'm sorry that the attachment suddenly went missing. I reattached it.

[Bug c++/102098] ICE when #include with -fmodules-ts -std=c++20 since r11-7530-g1e5cdb9f896fb220

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102098 --- Comment #4 from Devourer Station --- Created attachment 51388 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=51388&action=edit preprocessed source file (xz compressed) preprocessed source file (xz compressed)

[Bug c++/102137] class template argument deduction with template template parameter allows explicit deduction guide

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102137 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW CC|

[Bug target/102143] ABI incompatibility with clang when passing 32bit vectors on 32bit i686

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102143 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/101145] niter analysis fails for until-wrap condition

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca730231d5493647bb1e508fb1f853ffee0e95a commit r12-3255-geca730231d5493647bb1e508fb1f853ffee0e95a Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug target/102135] (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) changing operation order may reduce number of instructions needed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102135 --- Comment #1 from Richard Earnshaw --- A small change to the testcase shows that this is highly dependent on the constrained registers from the calling convention. uint64_t foo64(int dummy, const uint8_t *rData1) { uint64_t buffer;

[Bug target/102107] protocol register (r12) corrupted before a tail call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102107 --- Comment #11 from Paul Clarke --- This does produce the issue for me: -- $ git checkout remotes/vendors/ibm/gcc-11-branch gcc-AT $ mkdir gcc-AT-build $ cd gcc-AT-build $ ../gcc-AT/configure --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-libada --disable-

[Bug demangler/102132] [nm] Stack overflow in demangler_path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102132 --- Comment #3 from Irfan Ariq --- Okay, I will move it to sourceware bugzilla. Thank you

[Bug demangler/102130] [c++filt] Stack overflow in demangle_path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102130 --- Comment #2 from Irfan Ariq --- Okay I will move it to the sourceware bugzilla. Thank you.

[Bug bootstrap/100832] s390x-linux-gnu: wrong number of alternatives in the output template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100832 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com --- Co

[Bug target/102125] (ARM Cortex-M3 and newer) missed optimization. memcpy not needed operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102125 --- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw --- Testcase was not quite complete. Extending it to: typedef unsigned long long uint64_t; typedef unsigned long uint32_t; typedef unsigned char uint8_t; uint64_t bar64(const uint8_t *rData1) { uint64_t

[Bug target/101723] arm: incorrect order of .fpu and .arch_extension directives leads to unsupported instructions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101723 --- Comment #15 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #14) > I think you forgot to backport > r12-2790-ga22b3e022c2b45047a28d901042888eb77620499 to gcc-9 ? I don't think so. I think that patch collapsed away due t

[Bug fortran/93524] [ISO C Binding][F2018] CFI_allocate – elem_size mishandled + sm wrongly set?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93524 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug fortran/92482] BIND(C) with array-descriptor mishandled for type character

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92482 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-08-31 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/102141] [12 Regression] ICE: with single element vector and the bswap pass at -O2 since r12-3072-gb320edc0c29c838b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102141 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/101144] Coroutine compiler error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101144 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2021-08-31 Status|UNCONFI

[Bug tree-optimization/102131] [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102131 --- Comment #4 from bin cheng --- (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #3) > The issue may come from 'iv0 cmp iv1' transform: > >if (c -->if (c>=b) in-loop > -->if (b<=c) in-loop > > c: {4, +, 3} > b: {1, +, 1} > > if ({1, +, 1} <=

[Bug tree-optimization/100089] [11/12 Regression] 30% performance regression for denbench/mp2decoddata2 with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100089 Bug 100089 depends on bug 102142, which changed state. Bug 102142 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since r12-3222-g89f33f44addbf985 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102142 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/102142] [12 Regression] ICE Segmentation fault since r12-3222-g89f33f44addbf985

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102142 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

  1   2   >