[Bug fortran/107397] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_arith_plus, at fortran/arith.cc:654

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107397 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:09710f9934969dcb07131e1ed78b72e648123a3a commit r13-4764-g09710f9934969dcb07131e1ed78b72e648123a3a Author: Steve Kargl Date: Sat

[Bug target/108163] mesa LTO compiling ICEs with unable to generate reloads for neon_vld4qav16qi on arm-linux-gnueabihf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108163 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug middle-end/108162] Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that starts with if (param == 0) return 0;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Levo DeLellis from comment #3) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > > Round 4 is because of this heuriheuristics. Name the function something > > besides main and try again. > > I co

[Bug c++/108163] New: LTO crosscompilation for arm fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108163 Bug ID: 108163 Summary: LTO crosscompilation for arm fails Product: gcc Version: 10.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug middle-end/108162] Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that starts with if (param == 0) return 0;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162 --- Comment #3 from Levo DeLellis --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Round 4 is because of this heuriheuristics. Name the function something > besides main and try again. I couldn't reproduce. fn has more than xor eax/ret. godbol

[Bug middle-end/108162] Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that starts with if (param == 0) return 0;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Round 4 is because of this heuriheuristics. Name the function something besides main and try again.

[Bug middle-end/108162] Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that starts with if (param == 0) return 0;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |middle-end --- Comment #1 from Andrew P

[Bug c++/108162] New: Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that starts with if (param == 0) return 0;

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108162 Bug ID: 108162 Summary: Missed optimization opportunity. Complex function that starts with if (param == 0) return 0; Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug testsuite/108161] New: gcc.dg/ipa/pr96040.c fails with incorrect size_t assumption (snprintf, strspn)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108161 Bug ID: 108161 Summary: gcc.dg/ipa/pr96040.c fails with incorrect size_t assumption (snprintf, strspn) Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug testsuite/108160] gcc.dg/format/ms_attr-3.c testsuite failure, missed update from r9-4163-g1d24950977c730

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108160 --- Comment #1 from nightstrike --- It looks like the other testsuite changes (attr-8.c, the objc/c++ tests, etc.) should be evaluated and ported over also, so this isn't a complete fix. Alternatively, maybe this would scale better in the futur

[Bug testsuite/108160] New: gcc.dg/format/ms_attr-3.c testsuite failure, missed update from r9-4163-g1d24950977c730

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108160 Bug ID: 108160 Summary: gcc.dg/format/ms_attr-3.c testsuite failure, missed update from r9-4163-g1d24950977c730 Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug modula2/108153] Profiled lto bootstrap failure with modula2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108153 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, non-lto profiledbootstrap with modula2 passed on i686, x86_64, aarch64, s390x and ppc64le (all with the PR108147 patch). It is just lto profiledbootstrap that doesn't work.

[Bug c++/108158] [11/12/13 Regression] modification of '...' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108158 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid Known to work|

[Bug c++/108158] modification of '...' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108158 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 54119 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54119&action=edit testcase Next text attach the testcase rather than just doing a link to godbolt .

[Bug testsuite/108159] gcc.dg/format/ms-format2.c fails due to warning message change

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108159 --- Comment #1 from nightstrike --- Andrew pointed out that this is the better fix, and it does indeed work: diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/format/ms-format2.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/format/ms-format2.c index 5c950522a7c..9d21d108642 100644

[Bug testsuite/108159] New: gcc.dg/format/ms-format2.c fails due to warning message change

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108159 Bug ID: 108159 Summary: gcc.dg/format/ms-format2.c fails due to warning message change Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug fortran/108131] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Incorrect bound calculation when bound intrinsic used in size expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108131 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||10.3.0 Status|NE

[Bug c++/108158] New: modification of '...' is not a constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108158 Bug ID: 108158 Summary: modification of '...' is not a constant expression Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug ada/108157] New: [12/13 regression] object subtype doesn't statically match designated subtype

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108157 Bug ID: 108157 Summary: [12/13 regression] object subtype doesn't statically match designated subtype Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug c/107831] Missed optimization: -fclash-stack-protection causes unnecessary code generation for dynamic stack allocations that are clearly less than a page

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107831 --- Comment #9 from Petr Skocik --- Regarding the size of alloca/VLA-generated code under -fstack-clash-protection. I've played with this a little bit and while I love the feature, the code size increases seem quite significant and unnecessarily

[Bug fortran/97345] FE passes do_subscript leaks gmp memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97345 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org --- C

[Bug c++/108138] g++ 9+ takes 7-10x longer compiling constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108138 --- Comment #13 from Peter Hurley --- Thanks everyone! We're really grateful for the rapid response and backports! Happy holidays!

[Bug c++/108155] no warning for for (int i = 1; 1 <= 12; ++i)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Clang and EDG don't warn for this either, so maybe I'm the only person dumb > enough to write this. It still seems useful, if we can define the right > semanti

[Bug c++/108155] no warning for for (int i = 1; 1 <= 12; ++i)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Clang and EDG don't warn for this either, so maybe I'm the only person dumb enough to write this. It still seems useful, if we can define the right semantics without false positives, but it's not a priorit

[Bug c++/108155] no warning for for (int i = 1; 1 <= 12; ++i)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-12-17 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used (+=, ++)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Warn for variables |Warn for variables |in

[Bug c/44677] Warn for variables incremented but not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44677 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||muecker at gwdg dot de --- Comment #15 f

[Bug c/108156] missing set but not used warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108156 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/108156] New: missing set but not used warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108156 Bug ID: 108156 Summary: missing set but not used warning Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Ass

[Bug c++/107437] nested generic lambdas fail requiring unneded captures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107437 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka --- Reduced version of the original testcase: struct integral_constant { constexpr operator int() const { return 42; } }; template struct A { static constexpr int value = N; }; template struct B { stati

[Bug c++/107437] nested generic lambdas fail requiring unneded captures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107437 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c++/87765] Internal compiler error: coerce_template_parms (8.2) or cxx_eval_constant_expression (trunk)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.0 Resolution|---

[Bug c++/107437] nested generic lambdas fail requiring unneded captures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107437 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:982629bea416df976686467f235e09cb1a5531cc commit r13-4761-g982629bea416df976686467f235e09cb1a5531cc Author: Patrick Palka Date: S

[Bug c++/87765] Internal compiler error: coerce_template_parms (8.2) or cxx_eval_constant_expression (trunk)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87765 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:982629bea416df976686467f235e09cb1a5531cc commit r13-4761-g982629bea416df976686467f235e09cb1a5531cc Author: Patrick Palka Date: Sa

[Bug modula2/108122] gcc/testsuite/gm2/pimcoroutines/run/pass/testtime.mod runs too long

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108122 --- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley --- Created attachment 54117 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54117&action=edit Decrease sleep values in testtime.mod tested on amd64

[Bug c/108154] Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func param decl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108154 --- Comment #1 from Roman Žilka --- If the object size derivation procedure, which considers 's' to be 0-1 bytes here, isn't specific just to Wstringop-overread, there's one more issue in gcc, of course.

[Bug c++/108155] New: no warning for for (int i = 1; 1 <= 12; ++i)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108155 Bug ID: 108155 Summary: no warning for for (int i = 1; 1 <= 12; ++i) Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Prior

[Bug tree-optimization/102556] equality comparison of a [static N] parameter to null not folded

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102556 Roman Žilka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roman.zilka at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/108154] New: Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func decl

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108154 Bug ID: 108154 Summary: Inappropriate -Wstringop-overread in the C99 [static n] func decl Product: gcc Version: 11.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug modula2/108153] Profiled lto bootstrap failure with modula2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108153 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- One of the build is without my PR108147 fix, 2 of them are with it. I don't see m2rte plugin stuff anywhere in the backtrace (two intermingled ones).