[Bug target/103100] [11/12/13 Regression] unaligned access generated with memset or {} and -O2 -mstrict-align

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103100 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL|https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma |https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug c++/108747] Dangerous optimization when optimization is disabled by flag -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108747 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- -O0 does not mean "let me write invalid code"

[Bug libstdc++/77760] get_time needs to set tm_wday amd tm_yday

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77760 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Alexandre Oliva from comment #5) > I'm not entirely sure what the point of testing for __clang__ is, really. > Is libstdc++ used with, or supposed to be used (say, as a system library) > with

[Bug tree-optimization/108697] constructing a path-range-query is expensive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108697 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #5) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) > > But yes, your observation about m_has_cache_entry is correct - if that has > > any value (it makes reset_path

[Bug c++/108747] Dangerous optimization when optimization is disabled by flag -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108747 --- Comment #3 from alireza at hexosys dot com --- I Agree with you that the user has made mistake. but why does the compiler does this optimization that can change the behavior of the code, when we explicitly asked her to don't do any optimizat

[Bug c++/108747] Dangerous optimization when optimization is disabled by flag -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108747 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 54446 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54446&action=edit original testcase Next time also please don't just link godbolt but either put the testcase inline or attach i

[Bug c++/108747] Dangerous optimization when optimization is disabled by flag -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108747 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/108747] New: Optimization makes user mistake more dangerous when optimization is disabled by flag -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108747 Bug ID: 108747 Summary: Optimization makes user mistake more dangerous when optimization is disabled by flag -O0 Product: gcc Version: og11 (devel/omp/gcc-11) Status: UN

[Bug tree-optimization/108684] [12 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108684 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13 Regression] ICE: |[12 Regression] ICE:

[Bug tree-optimization/108684] [12/13 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108684 --- Comment #13 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Andrew Pinski : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6a5cb782d1486b378d70857c8efae558da0eb2cc commit r13-5768-g6a5cb782d1486b378d70857c8efae558da0eb2cc Author: Andrew Pinski Date: T

[Bug tree-optimization/107561] [13 Regression] g++.dg/pr71488.C and [g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C -m32] regression due to -Wstringop-overflow problem

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107561 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:41015797ad14bc9030a87d102e4ab1ad891345f6 commit r13-5766-g41015797ad14bc9030a87d102e4ab1ad891345f6 Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson

[Bug testsuite/106120] [13 regression] g++.dg/warn/Wstringop-overflow-4.C fails since r13-1268-g8c99e307b20c50

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106120 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c47f76c16bf7b3108e762d4b8b16fbb0c9c75187 commit r13-5765-gc47f76c16bf7b3108e762d4b8b16fbb0c9c75187 Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson

[Bug c++/101588] [DR2126] rejects valid constexpr when binding from a constexpr function and initializer_list

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101588 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- When fixing this, please adjust g++.dg/cpp0x/constexpr-nsdmi2.C.

[Bug c++/107079] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE initializing lifetime-extended constexpr variable that stores its this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12/13 Regression]|[10/11/12 Regression] ICE

[Bug c++/107079] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE initializing lifetime-extended constexpr variable that stores its this pointer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107079 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:67b82bc1b29b82e4577df9491793624f3a8eb12f commit r13-5763-g67b82bc1b29b82e4577df9491793624f3a8eb12f Author: Marek Polacek Date: We

[Bug tree-optimization/108687] [13 Regression] Non-termination since r13-5630-g881bf8de9b0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108687 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Macleod --- Created attachment 54445 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54445&action=edit proposed patch I finally reproduced it, the following patch is in testing. In the referenced commit, I chang

[Bug c/108734] powerpc: False Detection of __atomic_*_8 Builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108734 Rohan McLure changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/77760] get_time needs to set tm_wday amd tm_yday

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77760 --- Comment #5 from Alexandre Oliva --- I'm not entirely sure what the point of testing for __clang__ is, really. Is libstdc++ used with, or supposed to be used (say, as a system library) with __clang__? If so, wouldn't it be useful if it actua

[Bug c++/105841] [12/13 Regression] Change in behavior of CTAD for alias templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841 --- Comment #8 from Mike Spertus --- Thanks, Jason! My course starts in 6 minutes, so I can't look at it now but will give you feedback by 8:30AM tomorrow. Mike On Thu, Feb 9, 2023 at 3:07 PM jason at gcc dot gnu.org < gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org

[Bug c++/105841] [12/13 Regression] Change in behavior of CTAD for alias templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841 --- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill --- Created attachment 5 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=5&action=edit fix Here's a patchset to implement the standard behavior plus the CWG2664 clarification. Mike, does this look

[Bug c/108746] backtrace overwrites other memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108746 --- Comment #4 from Garrett vitiral --- https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30106 thanks again

[Bug analyzer/108733] -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positives seen with __attribute__((cleanup))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108733 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-02-09 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug analyzer/108733] -Wanalyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positives seen with __attribute__((cleanup))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108733 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:125b57aa67400388a496c2c0c40d9c8c55e0c94a commit r13-5762-g125b57aa67400388a496c2c0c40d9c8c55e0c94a Author: David Malcolm Date: T

[Bug c++/101099] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in type_unification_real, at cp/pt.c:22173

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101099 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c++/105841] [12/13 Regression] Change in behavior of CTAD for alias templates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105841 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/102529] ctad for aliases fails in the presence of constraints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102529 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug rtl-optimization/108711] [13 Regression] ICE in get_equiv, at lra-constraints.cc:534

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108711 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10827a92f1a8c3207b327515f77845b34c1d9512 commit r13-5761-g10827a92f1a8c3207b327515f77845b34c1d9512 Author: Vladimir N. Makarov

[Bug rtl-optimization/103541] unnecessary spills around const functions calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103541 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10827a92f1a8c3207b327515f77845b34c1d9512 commit r13-5761-g10827a92f1a8c3207b327515f77845b34c1d9512 Author: Vladimir N. Makarov

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 --- Comment #21 from ValdikSS --- VIA Eden Esther (32-bit core) 0 0 0001 746e6543 736c7561 48727561 0 1 0001 746e6543 736c7561 48727561 1 0 06d0 0800 4181 a7c9bbff 1 1 06d0 0800 4181 a7c9bbff 2 0 000

[Bug ipa/108740] two identical functions but the code generated differs due to volatile argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 --- Comment #5 from Piotr --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Piotr from comment #3) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > > Hmm, ICF + re-inlining makes it ignore some of the pointless volatile > > > d

[Bug c/108746] backtrace overwrites other memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108746 --- Comment #3 from Garrett vitiral --- Thanks, will do!

[Bug c/108746] backtrace overwrites other memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108746 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c/108746] backtrace overwrites other memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108746 --- Comment #1 from Garrett vitiral --- Sorry, I should have used standard types instead of my aliases for the example code void* m[100] = {0}; size_t len = backtrace(m, 100);

[Bug tree-optimization/108705] [13 Regression] Unexpected CPU time usage with LTO in ranger propagation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108705 --- Comment #7 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- The original cases have over 65 long call cascades that take different small arrays to be packed. Because of geometric time growth for every next repeated call, the -flto -O2 is unusable in these specific c

[Bug c/108746] New: backtrace overwrites other memory

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108746 Bug ID: 108746 Summary: backtrace overwrites other memory Product: gcc Version: 12.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug tree-optimization/108705] [13 Regression] Unexpected CPU time usage with LTO in ranger propagation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108705 --- Comment #6 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- Created attachment 54442 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54442&action=edit compressed output of gprof lto1 gmon.out profiled lto1 backend took 3829s to optimize 16 foo_() calls

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 --- Comment #20 from Erich Eckner --- Yeah, now it pulled some stuff :-) 0 0 000a 746e6543 736c7561 48727561 0 1 000a 746e6543 736c7561 48727561 1 0 06fa 00010800 008863a9 afc9fbff 1 1 06fa 00010800 008863a9 afc9fbff 2 0 02b

[Bug fortran/103779] ICE in gfc_convert_chartype, at fortran/intrinsic.c:5400

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/69636] ICE(s) on using option -fmodule-private

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69636 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a618b45ac41cf480f54c4fa4014aed6218931290 commit r13-5760-ga618b45ac41cf480f54c4fa4014aed6218931290 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: T

[Bug fortran/103779] ICE in gfc_convert_chartype, at fortran/intrinsic.c:5400

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a618b45ac41cf480f54c4fa4014aed6218931290 commit r13-5760-ga618b45ac41cf480f54c4fa4014aed6218931290 Author: Harald Anlauf Date: T

[Bug fortran/103259] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE in resolve_common_vars, at fortran/resolve.c:956 since r11-3866-g4d2a56a0f7135469

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103259 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2b3352b5d65bdb3fd612bbe0abe336226987d602 commit r12-9118-g2b3352b5d65bdb3fd612bbe0abe336226987d602 Author: Steve Kargl Da

[Bug c/108718] [10/11/12/13 Regression] csmith: possible bad code with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108718 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #4) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > > This also changes with -fno-strict-aliasing ... > > So does that mean that csmith is producing C code with U

[Bug tree-optimization/108687] [13 Regression] Non-termination since r13-5630-g881bf8de9b0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108687 --- Comment #8 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus --- I came up with a cross compiler where I can reproduce it: FROM fedora:37 RUN dnf -y upgrade \ && dnf -y install 'dnf-command(builddep)' \ && dnf -y builddep gcc \ && dnf -y install binu

[Bug analyzer/108745] New: -Wanalyzer-deref-before-check false positives seen in ImageMagick due to checks in macros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108745 Bug ID: 108745 Summary: -Wanalyzer-deref-before-check false positives seen in ImageMagick due to checks in macros Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/103779] ICE in gfc_convert_chartype, at fortran/intrinsic.c:5400

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103779 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug fortran/70817] Internal compiler error coarrays -finit-real=snan

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70817 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug c++/108736] [concepts] multidimensional subscript operator inside requires with variable template arguments is broken

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108736 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[concepts] multidimensional |[concepts] multidimensional

[Bug tree-optimization/108687] [13 Regression] Non-termination since r13-5630-g881bf8de9b0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108687 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod --- (In reply to Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus from comment #6) > Just to be sure: in the initial commit I missed adding -march=z13 and only > mentioned it in commit 2 > > I will come up with those logs and mail

[Bug c++/108744] error message when trying to use structured bindings in static member declaration could be cleaner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744 --- Comment #3 from Barry Revzin --- Yeah, they're banned in non-static data members also. But there, we just can't have any "auto" non-static data members, whereas you can have "auto" static data members (just not structured bindings).

[Bug tree-optimization/108687] [13 Regression] Non-termination since r13-5630-g881bf8de9b0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108687 --- Comment #6 from Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus --- Just to be sure: in the initial commit I missed adding -march=z13 and only mentioned it in commit 2 I will come up with those logs and mail them to you.

[Bug target/3506] volatile forces load into register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3506 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug target/3506] volatile forces load into register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3506 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |--- Summary|weird behaviour wh

[Bug rtl-optimization/105661] Comparisons to atomic variables generates less efficient code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105661 Bug 105661 depends on bug 50677, which changed state. Bug 50677 Summary: volatile forces load into register https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug target/3506] weird behaviour when incrementing volatile ints

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3506 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marc.glisse at normalesup dot org --- Co

[Bug rtl-optimization/50677] volatile forces load into register

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50677 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|NEW

[Bug ipa/108740] two identical functions but the code generated differs. Why?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Piotr from comment #3) > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > > Hmm, ICF + re-inlining makes it ignore some of the pointless volatile dance? > > why the code is different abstracting

[Bug c++/108744] error message when trying to use structured bindings in static member declaration could be cleaner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/108734] powerpc: False Detection of __atomic_*_8 Builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108734 David Edelsohn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug c++/108744] error message when trying to use structured bindings in static member declaration could be cleaner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/108744] New: error message when trying to use structured bindings in static member declaration could be cleaner

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108744 Bug ID: 108744 Summary: error message when trying to use structured bindings in static member declaration could be cleaner Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- As discussed, FLT_EVAL_METHOD applies to constants as well as to operations. See the example in C17 F.8.5, for example; it shows float y = 1.1e75f; // may raise exceptions since 1.1e75f

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #10 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7) > > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > > > https://eel.is/c++draft/cfloat.syn points to the C standard for

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > > https://eel.is/c++draft/cfloat.syn points to the C standard for > > FLT_EVAL_METHOD > > (plus https://eel.is/c++dr

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #8 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #7) > So, my interpretation is that unsuffixed "4.2" has to be the double constant > 4.2 (in IEEE double aka 0x1.0cccdp+2), which is then, because of > FLT_EVAL_

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #7 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5) > https://eel.is/c++draft/cfloat.syn points to the C standard for > FLT_EVAL_METHOD > (plus https://eel.is/c++draft/expr#pre-6 talks about excess precision too) > a

[Bug objc/108743] -fconstant-cfstrings not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108743 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Pierre Ossman from comment #2) > Great news. And that is the same thing as clang's -fconstant-cfstrings? yes > > Unfortunately, I couldn't see -mconstant-cfstrings in gcc's documentation, > b

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 --- Comment #19 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b24e9c083093a9e1b1007933a184c02f7ff058db commit r13-5759-gb24e9c083093a9e1b1007933a184c02f7ff058db Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug objc/108743] -fconstant-cfstrings not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108743 --- Comment #2 from Pierre Ossman --- Great news. And that is the same thing as clang's -fconstant-cfstrings? Unfortunately, I couldn't see -mconstant-cfstrings in gcc's documentation, but I may be looking in the wrong place.

[Bug objc/108743] -fconstant-cfstrings not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108743 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- The option is -mconstant-cfstrings, the documentation is slightly wrong.

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Erich Eckner from comment #17) > With that, I get a segfault in cpuid(): > > (gdb) run > Starting program: /tmp/a.out > [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] > Using host libthread_db

[Bug objc/108743] New: -fconstant-cfstrings not supported

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108743 Bug ID: 108743 Summary: -fconstant-cfstrings not supported Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: objc

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #3) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > > Note, internally in standard excess precision, 4.2 seen by the lexer is > > actually > > EXCESS_PRECISION , > > T

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- https://eel.is/c++draft/cfloat.syn points to the C standard for FLT_EVAL_METHOD (plus https://eel.is/c++draft/expr#pre-6 talks about excess precision too) and e.g. C17 5.2.4.2.2/9): "2 evaluate all operation

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00105.html for details.

[Bug target/100758] __builtin_cpu_supports does not (always) detect "sse2"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100758 --- Comment #17 from Erich Eckner --- With that, I get a segfault in cpuid(): (gdb) run Starting program: /tmp/a.out [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1". Program received sign

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #3 from Michael Matz --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > Note, internally in standard excess precision, 4.2 seen by the lexer is > actually > EXCESS_PRECISION , Then _that_ is the problem. The literal "4.2" simply is

[Bug ipa/108740] two identical functions but the code generated differs. Why?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108740 --- Comment #3 from Piotr --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > Hmm, ICF + re-inlining makes it ignore some of the pointless volatile dance? why the code is different abstracting form the sense of the assignment?

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, internally in standard excess precision, 4.2 seen by the lexer is actually EXCESS_PRECISION , when it is assigned to a double variable or cast to double (i.e. in places where C/C++ require the excess p

[Bug tree-optimization/108705] [13 Regression] Unexpected CPU time usage with LTO in ranger propagation

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108705 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod --- Whats even odder... https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108687 Thats a s390 bug that is spending forever in one of the DOM passes as well... and I cannot seem to reproduce it either.

[Bug target/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug middle-end/108742] Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org St

[Bug tree-optimization/108687] [13 Regression] Non-termination since r13-5630-g881bf8de9b0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108687 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod --- My cross compiler doesn't seem to exhibit this behaviour. It simply compiles this as a quite short program. It looks like it in the DOM pass.. could you try it with: -fdump-tree-all-detail --param=ranger

[Bug middle-end/108742] New: Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108742 Bug ID: 108742 Summary: Incorrect constant folding with (or exposed by) -fexcess-precision=standard Product: gcc Version: 12.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug tree-optimization/108705] [13 Regression] Unexpected CPU time usage with LTO in ranger propagation

c/gfortran -Bgcc/ -v -O2 -ftime-report -c hog.f90 Reading specs from gcc/specs COLLECT_GCC=./gcc/gfortran Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: /zzz/gg/configure --disable-multilib Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 13.0.1 20230209 (experime

[Bug tree-optimization/108684] [12/13 Regression] ICE: verify_ssa failed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108684 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code --- Comment #12 from Andrew

[Bug rust/108631] gcc/rust/backend/rust-constexpr.cc:2099:33: error: too few arguments to function ‘tree_node* Rust::Compile::unshare_constructor(tree, const char*, int, const char*)’ with --enable-ga

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108631 --- Comment #3 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Arthur Cohen from comment #2) > Patch looks good to me Martin, thank you. Will you push it directly? Do you see reasonable allocations when you run -fmem-report w/ --enable-gather-detailed-mem-s

[Bug tree-optimization/108688] [13 Regression] error: ‘bit_field_ref’ of non-mode-precision operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108688 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/108688] [13 Regression] error: ‘bit_field_ref’ of non-mode-precision operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108688 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bcca64d70ce91e29717fb70cff252639df6902be commit r13-5758-gbcca64d70ce91e29717fb70cff252639df6902be Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug c/108718] [10/11/12/13 Regression] csmith: possible bad code with -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108718 --- Comment #4 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > This also changes with -fno-strict-aliasing ... So does that mean that csmith is producing C code with UB and so this bug isn't valid ? It might also mean

[Bug tree-optimization/88739] [7 Regression] Big-endian union bug

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88739 --- Comment #64 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44f308e59bfa0f93ae05b17e257d8563c12399fd commit r13-5757-g44f308e59bfa0f93ae05b17e257d8563c12399fd Author: Andrew Pinski Date: T

[Bug tree-optimization/108688] [13 Regression] error: ‘bit_field_ref’ of non-mode-precision operand

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108688 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:44f308e59bfa0f93ae05b17e257d8563c12399fd commit r13-5757-g44f308e59bfa0f93ae05b17e257d8563c12399fd Author: Andrew Pinski Date:

[Bug rust/108631] gcc/rust/backend/rust-constexpr.cc:2099:33: error: too few arguments to function ‘tree_node* Rust::Compile::unshare_constructor(tree, const char*, int, const char*)’ with --enable-ga

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108631 Arthur Cohen changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug fortran/107424] [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397 - and wrong code - with non-rectangular loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107424 --- Comment #12 from Tobias Burnus --- Still to be done: Handle loop steps other than ±1. For a suggestion how it could be handled, see thread ending with the following email, which is possibly sufficient https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-pa

[Bug fortran/107424] [13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_omp_do, at fortran/trans-openmp.cc:5397 - and wrong code - with non-rectangular loops

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107424 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ac2949574da9a668daad421d7edb79f172f73c6f commit r13-5756-gac2949574da9a668daad421d7edb79f172f73c6f Author: Tobias Burnus Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/108737] [13 Regression] Apparent miscompile of infinite loop on gcc trunk in cddce2 pass since r13-3875

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108737 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/108737] [13 Regression] Apparent miscompile of infinite loop on gcc trunk in cddce2 pass since r13-3875

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108737 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC|

[Bug ipa/108679] [13 Regression] ice in modify_call, at ipa-param-manipulation.cc:656 since r13-4685-g4834e9360f7bf42f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108679 --- Comment #3 from Martin Jambor --- What happens is that ipa_param_body_adjustments::modify_call_stmt is confused by the IPA-CP produced scalar constant where it expects a structure containing just one field of the corresponding type. It is e

[Bug c++/101073] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in cxx_eval_constant_expression, at cp/constexpr.c:6941

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101073 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug fortran/108741] [OpenMP] Wrong code for lastprivate with pointer iteration variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108741 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID

[Bug fortran/108741] [OpenMP] Wrong code for lastprivate with pointer iteration variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108741 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

  1   2   >