[Bug target/104440] nvptx: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr53465.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104440 --- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries --- A good thing to note at this point: why doesn't init-regs work here? The pass works per insn, and when hitting the insn with the problematic use: ... (gdb) call debug_rtx (insn) (insn 18 17 19 4 (set (reg/v

[Bug middle-end/104550] bogus warning from -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 --- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 > > --- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to rguent...@suse

[Bug target/104440] nvptx: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr53465.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104440 --- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #1) > Tentative patch that fixes example: > ... > diff --git a/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.cc b/gcc/config/nvptx/nvptx.cc > index 5b26c0f4c7dd..4dc154434853 100644 > --- a/gc

[Bug tree-optimization/104579] vectorizer failed to reduce max & index search together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104579 --- Comment #2 from Hongtao.liu --- One possible way is sink maxInt = src[i] out of loop, when there's synchronised index search in the loop, just like below. int max (int *src, int n, int *position) { int maxInt; int maxIndex; int i;

[Bug middle-end/102276] -ftrivial-auto-var-init fails to initialize a variable, causes a spurious warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 15 Feb 2022, qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102276 > > --- Comment #11 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to rguent...@sus

[Bug target/104440] nvptx: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr53465.c execution test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104440 --- Comment #8 from Tom de Vries --- Created attachment 52456 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52456&action=edit Tentative patch, introducing -minit-regs=<0|1|2> This patch fixes the problem, and survived a standalone build

[Bug tree-optimization/104579] vectorizer failed to reduce max & index search together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104579 --- Comment #1 from Hongtao.liu --- cut /* Function vect_is_simple_reduction (1) Detect a cross-iteration def-use cycle that represents a simple reduction computation. We look for the following pattern: loop_

[Bug tree-optimization/104579] New: vectorizer failed to reduce max & index search together

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104579 Bug ID: 104579 Summary: vectorizer failed to reduce max & index search together Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimization

[Bug target/103628] ICE: Segmentation fault (in gfc_conv_tree_to_mpfr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103628 --- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha --- Indeed. Sorry. So could you cd flang/test/f90_correct/src and than invoke gfortran the following way instead: % powerpc-e300c3-linux-gnu-gfortran-12.0.1 -w -c check_mod.f90 qp54.f08 f951: internal compile

[Bug c++/104180] [10/11/12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length) w/ -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104180 --- Comment #7 from Alexandre Oliva --- I've recommended before that, without any plan to implement consumers for this debug information, keeping it in place is mostly wasteful. AFAICT other debug stmts issued by front-ends could hit the same i

[Bug c++/104539] Failed to inline a very simple template function when it's explicit instantiated.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104539 --- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > the explicit instantiation lacks COMDAT (but has comdat_group) and it > has forced_by_abi. > > I'm not sure the C++ standard calls out any semantic difference

[Bug c++/104578] [12 Regression] accepts invalid partial template specialization, non-type template argument depends on a template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104578 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.0

[Bug c++/104578] New: [12 Regression] accepts invalid partial template specialization, non-type template argument depends on a template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104578 Bug ID: 104578 Summary: [12 Regression] accepts invalid partial template specialization, non-type template argument depends on a template parameter Product: gcc

[Bug c++/104577] New: needs copy constructor to call method of class non-type template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104577 Bug ID: 104577 Summary: needs copy constructor to call method of class non-type template parameter Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: n

[Bug middle-end/63311] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -O1 optimization introduces valgrind warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311 --- Comment #21 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5fbcbcaff7248604e04b39464f4fbd64fbf6e43b commit r12-7270-g5fbcbcaff7248604e04b39464f4fbd64fbf6e43b Author: David Malcolm Date: W

[Bug analyzer/104576] False positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value from PR 63311

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104576 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5fbcbcaff7248604e04b39464f4fbd64fbf6e43b commit r12-7270-g5fbcbcaff7248604e04b39464f4fbd64fbf6e43b Author: David Malcolm Date: W

[Bug target/103623] [12 Regression] error: unable to generate reloads (ICE in curr_insn_transform, at lra-constraints.c:4132), or error: insn does not satisfy its constraints (ICE in extract_constrain

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103623 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |linkw at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/103353] Indefinite recursion when compiling -mmma requiring testcase w/ -maltivec

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103353 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/104560] False positive from -Wanalyzer-free-of-non-heap seen with rdma-core

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104560 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/104560] False positive from -Wanalyzer-free-of-non-heap seen with rdma-core

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104560 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a61aaee63848d422e8443e17bbec3257ee59d5d8 commit r12-7268-ga61aaee63848d422e8443e17bbec3257ee59d5d8 Author: David Malcolm Date: W

[Bug bootstrap/104566] Internal compiler error in fail_formatted while building gcc from source while building GCC 11.2.0 with ubuntu's 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104566 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Internal compiler error in |Internal compiler error in

[Bug c++/104567] SFINAE check failure with trying to access member field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104567 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|4.1.2 |4.4.7 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/104567] SFINAE check failure with trying to access member field

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104567 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/104567] SFINAE check failure starting gcc 4.7.1 and up with -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104567 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://godbolt.org/z/eGc9s | |n6GM

[Bug analyzer/104576] False positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value from PR 63311

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104576 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- Potentially just a dup of PR analyzer/104434, but there might be additional issues with the reproducer.

[Bug middle-end/63311] [9/10/11/12 Regression] -O1 optimization introduces valgrind warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63311 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug analyzer/104576] New: False positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value from PR 63311

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104576 Bug ID: 104576 Summary: False positive from -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value from PR 63311 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/103628] ICE: Segmentation fault (in gfc_conv_tree_to_mpfr)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103628 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug tree-optimization/89479] __restrict on a pointer ignored when disambiguating against a call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479 --- Comment #11 from Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1 of bug 94416) > I think there's a duplicate somewhere. We currently cannot encode "restrict" > into the "accesses" implied by a call. > > Note there's s

[Bug libstdc++/102358] niter_base and miter_base overloaded for move_iterator missing constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102358 Artur Bać changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc at ebasoft dot com.pl --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug tree-optimization/89479] __restrict on a pointer ignored when disambiguating against a call

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89479 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@nieper-wisskirchen.de --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/104574] GCC misses basic optimization for restricted pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104574 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug fortran/104211] ICE in find_array_section, at fortran/expr.cc:1720

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104211 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug fortran/104211] ICE in find_array_section, at fortran/expr.cc:1720

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104211 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3982a308e669cc5537322c83e8c2d49b0144297e commit r11-9579-g3982a308e669cc5537322c83e8c2d49b0144297e Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug tree-optimization/104574] GCC misses basic optimization for restricted pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104574 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |anlauf at gcc dot gnu

[Bug c++/94944] compile error accessing member function of dependent base class template in noexcept specification

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94944 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||oliver.rosten at googlemail dot co

[Bug c++/104575] noexcept operator rejects call to templated base class member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104575 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/104575] New: noexcept operator rejects call to templated base class member function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104575 Bug ID: 104575 Summary: noexcept operator rejects call to templated base class member function Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #6 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- The patch in comment#2 regtests ok. I've been thinking a little to find cases where there should be a difference to the patch in comment#1, but did not succeed so far. At least not with minor va

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:32:25PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 > > --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- > (In reply to Steve Karg

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #4 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Steve Kargl from comment #3) > I'm not sure. I don't use CLASSes, so only know a bit > about them. If I check F18:7.5.6, I find > > C786 (R753) A final-subroutine-name shall be th

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 --- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl --- On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 08:10:34PM +, anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > I was wondering if we also need to allow BT_CLASS. I'm not sure. I don't use CLASSes, so only know a bit about them. If I chec

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug c++/104565] [10/11/12 Regression] constexpr template goes wrong with class and call to constexpr method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104565 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/104573] ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/104353] ppc64le: Apparent reliance on undefined behavior of xvcvdpsxws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104353 --- Comment #2 from Christian Kastner --- Thank you for resolving this. Commenting just to link to to the QEMU issue in GitLab (which I do here, as "See Also" doesn't seem to support GitLab). https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/852

[Bug fortran/104572] ICE in gfc_resolve_finalizers, at fortran/resolve.cc:13646

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104572 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug fortran/104571] ICE in resolve_elemental_actual, at fortran/resolve.cc:2383

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104571 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-16 Status

[Bug c++/104568] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE [c++20] caused by option "-std=c++20 -Wall" when operand of operator new has size equal to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104568 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- The code tries to compute how many elements an array with such element type should have, and obviously when the element size is zero, that doesn't work. Will need to figure out if the size can be derived fro

[Bug tree-optimization/104574] New: GCC misses basic optimization for restricted pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104574 Bug ID: 104574 Summary: GCC misses basic optimization for restricted pointers Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug c++/104568] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE [c++20] caused by option "-std=c++20 -Wall" when operand of operator new has size equal to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104568 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/104568] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE [c++20] caused by option "-std=c++20 -Wall" when operand of operator new has size equal to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104568 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/104568] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE [c++20] caused by option "-std=c++20 -Wall" when operand of operator new has size equal to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104568 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection, |

[Bug c++/104507] [10/11 Regression] internal compiler error: unexpected expression ‘(int)(__ret)’ of kind cast_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10/11 Regression] internal

[Bug c++/104507] [10/11/12 Regression] internal compiler error: unexpected expression ‘(int)(__ret)’ of kind cast_expr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104507 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c19f317a78c0e4c1b51d0e5a8e4c0a3b985b7a8e commit r12-7264-gc19f317a78c0e4c1b51d0e5a8e4c0a3b985b7a8e Author: Patrick Palka Date: W

[Bug tree-optimization/104200] [12 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/aarch64/atomic-inst-cas.c (test for excess errors) fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104200 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- Maybe waccess should do a similar thing to uninitialized warnings does now: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-February/589983.html

[Bug fortran/104573] New: ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104573 Bug ID: 104573 Summary: ICE in resolve_structure_cons, at fortran/resolve.cc:1299 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug fortran/104572] New: ICE in gfc_resolve_finalizers, at fortran/resolve.cc:13646

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104572 Bug ID: 104572 Summary: ICE in gfc_resolve_finalizers, at fortran/resolve.cc:13646 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug fortran/104571] New: ICE in resolve_elemental_actual, at fortran/resolve.cc:2383

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104571 Bug ID: 104571 Summary: ICE in resolve_elemental_actual, at fortran/resolve.cc:2383 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug fortran/104570] [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.cc:3681

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104570 G. Steinmetz changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-on-valid-code --- Comment #1 from G.

[Bug fortran/104570] New: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.cc:3681

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104570 Bug ID: 104570 Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in gfc_conv_scalarized_array_ref, at fortran/trans-array.cc:3681 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug fortran/104569] New: ICE in generate_coarray_sym_init, at fortran/trans-decl.cc:5537

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104569 Bug ID: 104569 Summary: ICE in generate_coarray_sym_init, at fortran/trans-decl.cc:5537 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/104565] [10/11/12 Regression] constexpr template goes wrong with class and call to constexpr method

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104565 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] One |[10/11/12 Regression]

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

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456 Bug 56456 depends on bug 102006, which changed state. Bug 102006 Summary: A false warning "Array subscript -N is outside array bounds warning" https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102006 What|Removed |A

[Bug tree-optimization/102006] A false warning "Array subscript -N is outside array bounds warning"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102006 Martin Sebor changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/104565] [10/11/12 Regression] One too many `this`es in parsing?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104565 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||55004 Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/104550] bogus warning from -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 --- Comment #11 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > Even in that case, filling the memory with pattern & mask instead of filling > the memory with pattern + __builtin_clear_padding afterwards seems l

[Bug middle-end/104550] bogus warning from -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Even in that case, filling the memory with pattern & mask instead of filling the memory with pattern + __builtin_clear_padding afterwards seems like a win. Sure, in some cases combine etc. will be able to m

[Bug middle-end/104550] bogus warning from -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 --- Comment #9 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > Well, for the .DEFERRED_INIT case if the var ends up in memory, I really > don't see the point in any clear_padding, .DEFERRED_INIT expansion should

[Bug target/104462] ICE: in extract_constrain_insn_cached, at recog.cc:2682 with -mavx512fp16 -mno-xsave

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104462 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- *** Bug 104448 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/104448] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in initialize, at function-abi.cc:108 with -mavx5124vnniw / -mavx5124fmaps -mno-xsave -mabi=ms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104448 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/104448] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in initialize, at function-abi.cc:108 with -mavx5124vnniw / -mavx5124fmaps -mno-xsave -mabi=ms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104448 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f9c4917f01692a10f122f5ad56e559ba27751ace commit r12-7263-gf9c4917f01692a10f122f5ad56e559ba27751ace Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: W

[Bug c++/104568] New: ICE [regression c++20] caused by option "-std=c++20 -Wall" when operand of operator new has size equal to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104568 Bug ID: 104568 Summary: ICE [regression c++20] caused by option "-std=c++20 -Wall" when operand of operator new has size equal to 0 Product: gcc Version: 12.0

[Bug target/104448] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in initialize, at function-abi.cc:108 with -mavx5124vnniw / -mavx5124fmaps -mno-xsave -mabi=ms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104448 --- Comment #3 from Uroš Bizjak --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > r12-7147-g2f9ab267e725ddf2b6b44113e4fc4fb8b2a6adfb fixed this. > So, shall we just add the testcase into the testsuite and be done with it? I think so. -mno-xsave

[Bug target/104448] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in initialize, at function-abi.cc:108 with -mavx5124vnniw / -mavx5124fmaps -mno-xsave -mabi=ms

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104448 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug target/104353] ppc64le: Apparent reliance on undefined behavior of xvcvdpsxws

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104353 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/104550] bogus warning from -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8

[Bug middle-end/104550] bogus warning from -Wuninitialized + -ftrivial-auto-var-init=pattern

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104550 --- Comment #7 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #6) > > --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- > > Maybe __builtin_clear_padding lowering should mark the load "MEM[(struct > > vx_audio_level *)&info]

[Bug tree-optimization/104475] [12 Regression] Wstringop-overflow + atomics incorrect warning on dynamic object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104475 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c++/104567] New: SFINAE check failure starting gcc 4.7.1 and up with -std=c++11

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104567 Bug ID: 104567 Summary: SFINAE check failure starting gcc 4.7.1 and up with -std=c++11 Product: gcc Version: 4.7.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/104526] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs. 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- LGTM, thanks.

[Bug tree-optimization/104526] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs. 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod --- On 2/16/22 07:39, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526 > > --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- > + tree type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 0)); > + i

[Bug target/103925] Missing int3 in ix86_output_indirect_function_return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103925 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:978956485a663493130b02f787095095d163290e commit r11-9578-g978956485a663493130b02f787095095d163290e Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #43 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:58a4e292e8507a2968bfd2b10631ba95d5440c97 commit r11-9577-g58a4e292e8507a2968bfd2b10631ba95d5440c97 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #42 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5d928740a533cd9e78673fad7ea86d20b2142277 commit r11-9576-g5d928740a533cd9e78673fad7ea86d20b2142277 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed

[Bug target/102952] New code-gen options for retpolines and straight line speculation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102952 --- Comment #41 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:39d944c4237e5d35e28a2668d3b9a2e0f6f7bd01 commit r11-9575-g39d944c4237e5d35e28a2668d3b9a2e0f6f7bd01 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed

[Bug target/103307] Unused "%!" before return

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103307 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c604b03126722b419073a97e97ed844677058714 commit r11-9574-gc604b03126722b419073a97e97ed844677058714 Author: H.J. Lu Date: Wed

[Bug c++/99936] [modules] FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header* on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99936 --- Comment #9 from Francois-Xavier Coudert --- Most likely this: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=db84f382ae3dc238b1c3e3a18b786bca5bd38a14

[Bug c++/99936] [modules] FAIL: g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header* on Darwin

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99936 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #8 from Domin

[Bug rtl-optimization/104544] [10/11 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length) w/ -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104544 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12 Regression] |[10/11 Regression] |'

[Bug rtl-optimization/104544] [10/11/12 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure (length) w/ -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104544 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f997eef5654f782bedb985c9285862c4d76b3209 commit r12-7262-gf997eef5654f782bedb985c9285862c4d76b3209 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: W

[Bug rtl-optimization/104541] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE: maximum number of LRA assignment passes is achieved (30) with -O -fno-tree-ter -fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104541 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-02-16 CC|

[Bug c/104532] ICE in lvalue_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:4987

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104532 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 52454 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52454&action=edit gcc12-pr104532.patch Untested patch I wrote in the meantime (passes make check-gcc for gomp.exp/goacc.exp/goac

[Bug testsuite/104562] [12 regression] gfortran.dg/gomp/depend-5.f90 fails after r12-7242-g3939c1b11279dc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104562 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNC

[Bug driver/104566] New: Internal compiler error while building from source

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104566 Bug ID: 104566 Summary: Internal compiler error while building from source Product: gcc Version: 11.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug debug/104549] Missing variable at O2/O3 likely caused by -fearly-inlining

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104549 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug tree-optimization/104526] [12 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O3 (trunk vs. 11.2.0)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104526 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- + tree type = TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 0)); + if (type != TREE_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1))) +return false; looks unnecessarily restrictive. What tree-cfg.cc verification guarantees (and no need

[Bug middle-end/104558] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE: in expand_call, at calls.cc:3601 with -fabi-version=9 on pr83487.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104558 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/104565] New: One too many `this`es in parsing?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104565 Bug ID: 104565 Summary: One too many `this`es in parsing? Product: gcc Version: 10.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

  1   2   >