[Bug testsuite/109793] new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr108950.c from r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d4 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109793 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug testsuite/108985] new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr108950.c from r13-6384-ge3837b6f6c28a1 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108985 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:531d5439021fb6402cf3f8606b9d9e13f9d03e5a commit r11-10756-g531d5439021fb6402cf3f8606b9d9e13f9d03e5a Author: Richard Biene

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #32 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 9 May 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 > > --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Comment on attachment 55031 > --> https

[Bug middle-end/104069] Wuse-after-free=2 -O0 false positive "may be used"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104069 Miklos Karacsony changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mkaracsony81 at gmail dot com --- Co

[Bug testsuite/109793] new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr108950.c from r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d4 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109793 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||testsuite-fail CC|

[Bug middle-end/109505] (t | 15) & svcntb() causes an OOM/ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109505 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug target/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Oh I know this bug.

[Bug target/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- -O0: LRA non-specific : 33.12 ( 20%) 0.06 ( 1%) 33.15 ( 19%) 279M ( 25%) LRA virtuals elimination : 2.08 ( 1%) 0.00 ( 0%) 2.08 ( 1%) 18M ( 2%) LRA reload in

[Bug target/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > At -O0, it seems like LRA is taking a long time. But -O0 completes for me on the trunk.

[Bug target/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- At -O0, it seems like LRA is taking a long time.

[Bug c++/109795] is_standard_layout incorrect for colliding member and base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109795 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- >The following compiles on GCC 13.1.0 when it should not: You have the opposite way around. GCC is the one which rejects this code while the other compilers accept it ...

[Bug c++/109795] New: is_standard_layout incorrect for colliding member and base class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109795 Bug ID: 109795 Summary: is_standard_layout incorrect for colliding member and base class Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug bootstrap/109765] [14 regression] ICE in real_to_decimal_for_mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109765 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- Report is at https://marc.info/?l=gmp-bugs&m=168367093126416&w=2. I ended up sending it a few times because I've had mail delivery problems before and I didn't realise the list was moderated even for subscribers

[Bug c++/109790] [11/12/13/14 Regression] internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | CC|

[Bug c++/109790] [11/12/13/14 Regression] internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 108303, which changed state. Bug 108303 Summary: lookup failes with requires clause on non-template friend function of a class template https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108303 What|Removed

[Bug c++/108303] lookup failes with requires clause on non-template friend function of a class template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108303 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/109751] [13/14 Regression] boost iterator_interface fails concept check starting in gcc-13

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added See Also|https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=1

[Bug c++/109751] [13/14 Regression] boost iterator_interface fails concept check starting in gcc-13

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code |rejects-valid Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/97700] Bogus error when a class containing a function pointer is used as a non-type template parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97700 --- Comment #5 from Lukas Böger --- One part of this seems to be resolved with version 13. Below, only the lambda use case fails to compile, whereas prior to version 13, both type aliases are rejected: ``` void fun() {} struct S { void (*f

[Bug target/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55034|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/109794] Massive memory usage when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 55035 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55035&action=edit evaluate_prg_hwy.ii.xz (13)

[Bug c++/109794] New: Compile time hog when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109794 Bug ID: 109794 Summary: Compile time hog when building chromium on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: compile-t

[Bug libffi/109447] test case libffi.closures/cls_align_longdouble_split.c fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109447 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Peter Bergner : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:0069ce6631880776a44fb8408c6428c0812285cf commit r12-9526-g0069ce6631880776a44fb8408c6428c0812285cf Author: Dan Horák Date

[Bug c++/109790] internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||c++-lambda, |

[Bug c++/109751] boost iterator_interface fails concept check starting in gcc-13

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109751 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug fortran/100961] Intrinsic function as value to a class(*) assumed rank argument fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100961 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to fail|

[Bug c++/109761] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Nested class destructor's noexcept specification incorrectly considered as too loose compared to the outer class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[10/11/12/13/14 Regression] |[10/11/12/13 Regression]

[Bug c++/109752] [13 regression] ICE in check_complete_insertion, at hash-table.h:578 since r13-4937

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/109752] [13/14 regression] ICE in check_complete_insertion, at hash-table.h:578 since r13-4937

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109752 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbb6cf926f1732559b3a8aaf2796d34e8651c066 commit r14-640-gbbb6cf926f1732559b3a8aaf2796d34e8651c066 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Tu

[Bug c++/109761] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] Nested class destructor's noexcept specification incorrectly considered as too loose compared to the outer class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c13906f258fb34b3e0c90ddc8d9191dd72f3da0e commit r14-639-gc13906f258fb34b3e0c90ddc8d9191dd72f3da0e Author: Patrick Palka Date: Tu

[Bug fortran/90207] Debugging generated tree code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90207 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|10.5|--- --- Comment #8 from anlau

[Bug fortran/87851] [10 Regression] Wrong return type for len_trim

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87851 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.3.0, 12.2.0, 13.1.0,

[Bug testsuite/109793] New: new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr108950.c from r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d4 fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109793 Bug ID: 109793 Summary: new test case gcc.dg/vect/pr108950.c from r11-10752-gd4cbcb9e45c6d4 fails Product: gcc Version: 11.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: no

[Bug tree-optimization/18487] Warnings for pure and const functions that are not actually pure or const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug c/109792] RFE: Warn about misuse of "pure" attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c/109792] RFE: Warn about misuse of "pure" attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug c/109792] New: RFE: Warn about misuse of "pure" attribute

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109792 Bug ID: 109792 Summary: RFE: Warn about misuse of "pure" attribute Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug tree-optimization/109791] -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O3 and _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109791 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- The exact command line for a generic x86_64-linux-gnu compiler: -O2 -fvect-cost-model=dynamic -Wstringop-overflow -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 -march=x86-64-v2

[Bug modula2/109779] isolib SkipLine skips the first character of the successive line

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109779 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug modula2/109779] isolib SkipLine skips the first character of the successive line

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109779 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Gaius Mulley : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:434dade5a11f63533cbf6059a862856c9b11c711 commit r14-620-g434dade5a11f63533cbf6059a862856c9b11c711 Author: Gaius Mulley Date: Tue

[Bug c++/109791] New: -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O3 and _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109791 Bug ID: 109791 Summary: -Wstringop-overflow warning with -O3 and _GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/109790] internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- reducing ...

[Bug c++/109790] internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790 --- Comment #1 from Eric Niebler --- Possible dupe of https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100632

[Bug c++/109790] New: internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109790 Bug ID: 109790 Summary: internal compiler error in write_member_name, at cp/mangle.cc:2992 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/88088] -Wtrampolines should be enabled by -Wall (or -Wextra)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #25 fr

[Bug c/88088] -Wtrampolines should be enabled by -Wall (or -Wextra)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88088 --- Comment #24 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #23) > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #22) > > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #21) > > > (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #20) > > > > https:/

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek --- Well, you don't need to use {,vec_}{safe,quick}_push etc. all the time, just have auto_vec in there and use .address () on it to give you pointer to the elements and then .length () / .allocated () and .res

[Bug middle-end/109787] Warn about contract violations that can be detected at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #30 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29) > Comment on attachment 55031 [details] > WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<> > > What I meant is that by using a auto_vec could avoid reimplementing larger >

[Bug target/109780] [12/13/14 Regression] csmith: runtime crash with -O2 -march=znver1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|csmith: runtime crash with |[12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug target/109780] csmith: runtime crash with -O2 -march=znver1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780 --- Comment #12 from Alexander Monakov --- Eh, that commit sneakily changed avx2 tuning without explaining that in the Changelog. Anyway, it should possible to "workaround" that by compiling with -O2 -mavx2 -mtune=skylake-avx512 instead, in

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- Comment on attachment 55031 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55031 WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<> What I meant is that by using a auto_vec could avoid reimplementing larger chunks

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #28 from Aldy Hernandez --- Created attachment 55031 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55031&action=edit WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<> Here's my WIP.

[Bug c++/109756] "internal compiler error: tree check" when using the [[assume]] attribute with pack expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7bd9a34e9fce0fc307ec26d6db071fe0bc02cd37 commit r13-7312-g7bd9a34e9fce0fc307ec26d6db071fe0bc02cd37 Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug c++/109756] "internal compiler error: tree check" when using the [[assume]] attribute with pack expansion

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109756 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2499540e9abb55079b5f7b7ccdac97fbc63d9ab4 commit r14-619-g2499540e9abb55079b5f7b7ccdac97fbc63d9ab4 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Tu

[Bug c++/109761] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] Nested class destructor's noexcept specification incorrectly considered as too loose compared to the outer class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Nested class destructor's |[10/11/12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug c++/109761] Nested class destructor's noexcept specification incorrectly considered as too loose compared to the outer class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109761 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #27 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 9 May 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 > > --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- > new/delete rather than auto_vec member in

[Bug c++/109774] template function causes Spurious dangling reference warning while non-template does not

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109774 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-05-09 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug middle-end/90302] Implement __builtin_warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90302 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug target/109093] csmith: a February runtime bug ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093 --- Comment #25 from David Binderman --- Created attachment 55030 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55030&action=edit C source code

[Bug target/109093] csmith: a February runtime bug ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109093 --- Comment #24 from David Binderman --- Attached C code does this: $ for i in ../results.202302??/bin/gcc; do echo $i; $i -w -O2 -march=znver1 -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero bug918.c; ./a.out; done ../results.20230205/bin/gcc checksum = 82D25348

[Bug fortran/109788] [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- On the IPA side I'd go with at least 2023-05-09 Jakub Jelinek PR fortran/109788 * ipa-prop.cc (ipa_get_callee_param_type): Don't return TREE_VALUE (t) if t is void_list_node. ---

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek --- new/delete rather than auto_vec member inside of the type using new/delete?

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #25 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #24) > FYI. I originally tried new/delete for allocation, which was a tad slower > than ggc_alloc / ggc_free. Not too much, but measurable. > > Another idea woul

[Bug c++/67491] [meta-bug] concepts issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67491 Bug 67491 depends on bug 109160, which changed state. Bug 109160 Summary: [Valid code] Constraint on deduced NTTP from method call causes ICE/Segfault. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109160 What|Removed

[Bug fortran/109788] [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |fortran --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelin

[Bug c++/109160] [Valid code] Constraint on deduced NTTP from method call causes ICE/Segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109160 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/109160] [Valid code] Constraint on deduced NTTP from method call causes ICE/Segfault.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109160 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56da68414b5b5f0124cac29756c88710e5752762 commit r12-9525-g56da68414b5b5f0124cac29756c88710e5752762 Author: Patrick Palka

[Bug c/109789] analyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109789 --- Comment #1 from alex at zrythm dot org --- Created attachment 55029 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55029&action=edit preprocessed .i file (gzipped)

[Bug c/109789] New: analyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109789 Bug ID: 109789 Summary: analyzer-use-of-uninitialized-value false positive Product: gcc Version: 13.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug tree-optimization/109788] [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #24 from Aldy Hernandez --- FYI. I originally tried new/delete for allocation, which was a tad slower than ggc_alloc / ggc_free. Not too much, but measurable. Another idea would be to have a global obstack which auto_int_range<> u

[Bug tree-optimization/109788] [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14 Regression] |[14 Regression] |gcc/h

[Bug target/109661] [13 Regression] ICE in aarch64_function_arg_alignment when building erlang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109661 --- Comment #10 from Sam James --- Could you post the backport here (or chuck it on the 13 branch) so we could pull it in for gentoo? thanks

[Bug tree-optimization/109788] New: [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109788 Bug ID: 109788 Summary: [14 Regression] gcc/hwint.h:293:61: runtime error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int Product: gcc Version

[Bug middle-end/109787] Warn about contract violations that can be detected at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug middle-end/109787] New: Warn about contract violations that can be detected at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109787 Bug ID: 109787 Summary: Warn about contract violations that can be detected at compile time Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnost

[Bug c++/60512] would be useful if gcc implemented __has_feature similarly to clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512 --- Comment #21 from Alex Coplan --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #17) > > heh, despite that I've not done anything to it since 2019 actually it builds > and the tests pass - at least for C. Anyway, see what you think and how it > line

[Bug target/109780] csmith: runtime crash with -O2 -march=znver1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #10) > (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > > Started with zen tuning revision r13-4839-geef81eefcdc2a5. > > The issue is also reproducible with -march=ha

[Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109695 --- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez --- An update on the int_range_max memory bloat work. As Andrew mentioned, having int_range<25> solves the problem, but is just kicking the can down the road. I ran some stats on what we actually need on a b

[Bug target/109780] csmith: runtime crash with -O2 -march=znver1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780 --- Comment #10 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #9) > Started with zen tuning revision r13-4839-geef81eefcdc2a5. The issue is also reproducible with -march=haswell or -march=skylake, so you can use those for fu

[Bug other/109668] 'python' vs. 'python3'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109668 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug tree-optimization/99987] [12/13/14 Regression] missed optimization for dead code elimination at -O3 (vs. -O2)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99987 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | --- Comment #4 from Martin Liška --- (I

[Bug target/109780] csmith: runtime crash with -O2 -march=znver1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug c++/109785] ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785 --- Comment #2 from fiesh at zefix dot tv --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1) > Dup. > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 109666 *** Ah thanks, and sorry for the dup. Searched for bagin_maybe_infinite_loop and othe

[Bug c++/109785] ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE CC|

[Bug c++/109666] [12 Regression] Segmentation fault with std::array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109666 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fiesh at zefix dot tv --- Comment #13 fr

[Bug sanitizer/109786] basic_string.h: runtime error: execution reached an unreachable program point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109786 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug libstdc++/109703] [12/13/14 Regression] __builtin_unreachable() reached since r13-6915-gbf78b43873b0b7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109703 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gnu.ojxq8 at dralias dot com --- Comm

[Bug sanitizer/109786] New: basic_string.h: runtime error: execution reached an unreachable program point

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109786 Bug ID: 109786 Summary: basic_string.h: runtime error: execution reached an unreachable program point Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity

[Bug c++/60512] would be useful if gcc implemented __has_feature similarly to clang

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60512 --- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe --- although, I guess, we could have one table and somehow include the target in predicates if appropriate...

[Bug c++/109785] New: ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109785 Bug ID: 109785 Summary: ICE in begin_maybe_infinite_loop Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug target/109780] csmith: runtime crash with -O2 -march=znver1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109780 --- Comment #8 from David Binderman --- As far as the snapshots go, 20221218..20221225 seems to be the range. In git, this is g:fd69977febf399d1992bbf8d66ae9170e0a4dc9f .. g:febb58d28bfa4b544ec7ffec2d61f46d25205ff0, which is 123 commits. Tryin

[Bug tree-optimization/109778] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d68d989286340c20bc0f713addf44dc0f0d77ac3 commit r10-11399-gd68d989286340c20bc0f713addf44dc0f0d77ac3 Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug tree-optimization/109778] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Wrong code at -O1 and above on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109778 --- Comment #14 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f06a5c09287ad4606872403c6f8b01d1fe2f5540 commit r10-11398-gf06a5c09287ad4606872403c6f8b01d1fe2f5540 Author: Jakub Jelinek

[Bug middle-end/90348] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] Partition of char arrays is incorrect in some cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90348 --- Comment #27 from Richard Biener --- The testcase in comment#2 still reproduces on the GCC 11 branch but no longer with GCC 12+ (on x86_64-linux, -O2).

  1   2   >