[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug libgcc/114762] wrong code with _BitInt() division by "BITINT_NN_MIN"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114762 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9f295847a9c32081bdd0fe908ffba58e830a24fb commit r14-10035-g9f295847a9c32081bdd0fe908ffba58e830a24fb Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug libgcc/114762] wrong code with _BitInt() division by "BITINT_NN_MIN"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114762 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:36f4c8a9ac8f71fc21fcb169c7913e8fef30d15c commit r14-10034-g36f4c8a9ac8f71fc21fcb169c7913e8fef30d15c Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug fortran/103471] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103471 --- Comment #9 from Paul Thomas --- > This looks more user friendly. Also true. I have put it on to regtest but I think that it might be a good idea to understand how the symbol evades resolution :-) Paul

[Bug fortran/103471] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103471 --- Comment #8 from Paul Thomas --- > This looks more user friendly. Also true. I have put it on to regtest but I think that it might be a good idea to understand how the symbol evades resolution :-) Paul

[Bug tree-optimization/114774] Missed DSE in simple code due to interleaving sotres

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/114769] [14 Regression] Suspicious code in vect_recog_sad_pattern()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114769 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Suspicious code in |[14 Regression] Suspicious

[Bug gcov-profile/114735] Gcov not working with gcc version 11.4.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735 --- Comment #9 from Gejoe --- Thank you Andrew. Meanwhile any idea if the support person is on leave for this query : https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 ; Thanks again. -Gejoe From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org"

[Bug gcov-profile/114735] Gcov not working with gcc version 11.4.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- I will try to add something to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-11/porting_to.html in the next few weeks.

[Bug gcov-profile/114735] Gcov not working with gcc version 11.4.0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114735 --- Comment #7 from Gejoe --- Thanks Andrew. It would be better to document this change post gcc11 apart from a sample example as generally it is understood that --coverage flag is enough for gcc to get coverage enabled build done and then gco

[Bug c/95130] GCC ignoring attribute(format(gnu_printf)) on printf in mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130 --- Comment #24 from LIU Hao --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #23) > Note since MSVC 2015 runtime, printf has support %ll so ms_printf should be > fixed to incldue that. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/form

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #13 from Nikita Kniazev --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12) > The reality is ms_printf most likely should just include z and ll support > instead since they are supported now: > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-r

[Bug c/95130] GCC ignoring attribute(format(gnu_printf)) on printf in mingw

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95130 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Pinski --- Note since MSVC 2015 runtime, printf has support %ll so ms_printf should be fixed to incldue that. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/c-runtime-library/format-specification-syntax-printf-and-wprintf-func

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #11) > -mcrtdll=ucrt should make __printf__ be gnu_printf instead of ms_printf. > Should I file separate issue or this one can be reopened? The reality is ms_printf

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 Nikita Kniazev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug analyzer/114778] New: ICE: internal compiler error: in get_region_for_local, at analyzer/region.cc:1366

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114778 Bug ID: 114778 Summary: ICE: internal compiler error: in get_region_for_local, at analyzer/region.cc:1366 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severi

[Bug tree-optimization/25290] PHI-OPT could be rewritten so that is uses match

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25290 --- Comment #33 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #6) > I assume it would help with this? Note that was fixed outside of phiopt in GCC 11 by r11-6609-g13d47c37a2c043 (PR 95731).

[Bug tree-optimization/19661] unnecessary atexit calls emitted for static objects with empty destructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19661 --- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #18) > Created attachment 57987 [details] > Patch which I will be submitting once GCC 15 stage 1 opens up I forgot to add the testcase from comment #12. the patch whi

[Bug tree-optimization/19661] unnecessary atexit calls emitted for static objects with empty destructors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19661 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 57987 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57987&action=edit Patch which I will be submitting once GCC 15 stage 1 opens up

[Bug c++/114777] inconsistent warning for pure functions on deconstructors/constructors on arm compared to other targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114777 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note we only started to warn about pure/const on functions returning void in GCC 8 .

[Bug c++/114777] New: inconsistent warning for pure functions on deconstructors/constructors on arm compared to other targets

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114777 Bug ID: 114777 Summary: inconsistent warning for pure functions on deconstructors/constructors on arm compared to other targets Product: gcc Version: 14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/114776] -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 --- Comment #6 from Alan Coopersmith --- Thanks, I didn't realize there was a test_nonfatal_assertions path through the g_assert that could return here. I'll update the wording on my proposed workaround to reflect that: https://gitlab.freedeskt

[Bug tree-optimization/114776] -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 --- Comment #5 from Alan Coopersmith --- Created attachment 57986 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57986&action=edit Preproccessed test case

[Bug middle-end/104075] bogus/missing -Wuse-after-free

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104075 Bug 104075 depends on bug 114776, which changed state. Bug 114776 Summary: -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null() https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 What|Removed |

[Bug tree-optimization/114776] -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/114776] -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Seems like g_assertion_message should have _Noreturn on it if you are compiling for C11-C17 and [[noreturn]] for C++11+ (and C23+).

[Bug tree-optimization/114776] -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- As far as I can tell g_assertion_message does not have noreturn on it which means this invalid. It only has G_ANALYZER_NORETURN on it. which is only defined to analyzer_noreturn if running under clang's ana

[Bug tree-optimization/114776] -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/114776] New: -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114776 Bug ID: 114776 Summary: -Wuse-after-free analysis believes assert() but not g_assert_null() Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #9) > Ok, is there at least an option to build GCC so it defaults __printf__ to > gnu_printf? Defaulting __printf__ to ms_printf on UCRT is wrong (every OS > without

[Bug target/101345] wrong code at -O1 with vector modulo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101345 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #1) > Jeevitha, can you please do a git bisect from the two commits above to > identify the commit that fixes this for posterity sake? Thanks. I'll note I used -O1 -

[Bug target/101345] wrong code at -O1 with vector modulo

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101345 Peter Bergner changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Known to work|

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #9 from Nikita Kniazev --- Ok, is there at least an option to build GCC so it defaults __printf__ to gnu_printf? Defaulting __printf__ to ms_printf on UCRT is wrong (every OS without UCRT is already EOL).

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #7) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > > (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #5) > > > > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for ming

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #7 from Nikita Kniazev --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #5) > > > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at > > > one point %ll didn't exist for

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Nikita Kniazev from comment #5) > > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at one > > point %ll didn't exist for mingw and nobody has updated it since then. > > D

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #5 from Nikita Kniazev --- > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at one > point %ll didn't exist for mingw and nobody has updated it since then. Do you mean that binutils and [other code out there](

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- If anything gnu_printf should be used instead for _bfd_error_handler and that would be a binutils issue and reported there ...

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > So there is mingw_printf and gnu_printf attributes for mingw because at one > point %ll didn't exist for mingw and nobody has updated it since then. Sorry I mea

[Bug target/114775] on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/114775] New: on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114775 Bug ID: 114775 Summary: on mingw __attribute__ ((__format__ (__printf__, ...))) doesn't recognize C99 specifiers Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug fortran/103471] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at fortran/trans-types.c:1114

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103471 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug middle-end/114774] Missed DSE in simple code due to interleaving sotres

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Missed DSE in simple code |Missed DSE in simple code

[Bug c++/114764] noexcept on a friend complains about incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114764 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- I don't think so, it's the same problem. You could have struct S { friend void f() noexcept(noexcept(a)); friend void f() noexcept(noexcept(b)) { } int a; int b; }; and we'd have to track if the e

[Bug other/113317] New test case libgomp.c++/ind-base-2.C fails with ICE

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113317 Thomas Schwinge changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c/114773] Raw string literals are not supported in C89 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114773 --- Comment #4 from Sirraide --- Yeah, we figured that that was why they’re not supported in `-gnu89` mode, but I thought I’d ask just to be sure.

[Bug c/114773] Raw string literals are not supported in C89 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114773 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3

[Bug middle-end/114774] Missed DSE in simple code due to other stores being conditional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Severity|

[Bug c/114773] Raw string literals are not supported in C89 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114773 --- Comment #2 from Sirraide --- Thanks!

[Bug c/114773] Raw string literals are not supported in C89 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114773 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html Looks like it is on purpose: C++0x raw strings are supported for C++ and for C with -std=gnu99. https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20080912132007.ga9...@hs2

[Bug middle-end/114774] New: Missed DSE in simple code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114774 Bug ID: 114774 Summary: Missed DSE in simple code Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: middle-end A

[Bug c++/114764] noexcept on a friend complains about incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114764 --- Comment #3 from Giuseppe D'Angelo --- I guess you're referring to https://lists.isocpp.org/core/2019/07/6785.php ? I'm really not sure why a friend function declaration is different from a free function, where multiple equivalent declaratio

[Bug c/114773] New: Raw string literals are not supported in C89 mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114773 Bug ID: 114773 Summary: Raw string literals are not supported in C89 mode Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/114764] noexcept on a friend complains about incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114764 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 --- Comment #5 from Roger Sayle --- Another interesting (simpler) case of -ffast-math pessimization is: void foo(_Complex double *c) { for (int i=0; i<16; i++) c[i] += __builtin_complex(1.0,0.0); } Again without -ffast-math we vectori

[Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 --- Comment #4 from mjr19 at cam dot ac.uk --- An issue which I suspect is related is shown by subroutine zradd(c,n) integer :: i,n complex(kind(1d0)) :: c(*) do i=1,n c(i)=c(i)+1d0 enddo end subroutine If compiled with gfortran-1

[Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 Roger Sayle changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roger at nextmovesoftware dot com --- Co

[Bug c++/114764] noexcept on a friend complains about incomplete type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114764 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- EDG also accepts it ...

[Bug fortran/114739] [14 Regression] ice in gfc_find_derived_types, at fortran/symbol.cc:2458

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114739 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e243d0feafa533141ef7e23820d5cc60cf33204a commit r14-10030-ge243d0feafa533141ef7e23820d5cc60cf33204a Author: Paul Thomas Date: Thu

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/113625] Interesting behavior with and without -mcpu=generic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113625 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comme

[Bug libstdc++/114770] std::chrono::locate_zone("Asia/Chungking") fails on Debian Sid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114770 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |redi at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/114771] GCC accepts invalid overloading of member function differing only in ref qualifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114771 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- EDG also accepts this. so 3 out of 4 compilers out accept it. Maybe there is a defect report ...

[Bug c++/114772] pragma GCC target applied to earlier template function with __attribute__((warn_unused_result))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114772 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/114772] New: pragma GCC target applied to earlier template function with __attribute__((warn_unused_result))

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114772 Bug ID: 114772 Summary: pragma GCC target applied to earlier template function with __attribute__((warn_unused_result)) Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/113724] [14 Regression][OpenMP] ICE (segfault) when mapping a struct in omp_gather_mapping_groups_1 since r14-6515

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113724 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Sum

[Bug other/114738] [14 Regression] Default DOCUMENTATION_ROOT_URL vs. release branches

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114738 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek -

[Bug c++/114771] New: GCC accepts invalid overloading of member function differing only in ref qualifier

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114771 Bug ID: 114771 Summary: GCC accepts invalid overloading of member function differing only in ref qualifier Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug libstdc++/114770] New: std::chrono::locate_zone("Asia/Chungking") fails on Debian Sid

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114770 Bug ID: 114770 Summary: std::chrono::locate_zone("Asia/Chungking") fails on Debian Sid Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/51906] thread lock test failures on darwin11 under Xcode 4.2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51906 --- Comment #58 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Iain D Sandoe : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ab4ff3e9fe881ef85a8156f2be528872c6a2fdfc commit r12-10336-gab4ff3e9fe881ef85a8156f2be528872c6a2fdfc Author: Iain Sandoe D

[Bug rtl-optimization/114729] RISC-V SPEC2017 507.cactu excessive spillls with -fschedule-insns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114729 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Yup. -fsched-verbose=99 is *very* verbose. But that's the point, to see all the gory details. It can be dialed down, but I've never done so myself. What stands out to me is this: ;;| Pressure co

[Bug target/114676] [12/13/14 Regression] DSE removes assignment that is used later

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114676 --- Comment #15 from Aleksei Nikiforov --- I think fixing compiled code should be possible. I'm not sure if this bug should be just closed.

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #5) > Can libgomp defer changing affinity of the initial thread to the launch of > the first parallel region (i.e. change it only at thread pool > initialization,

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Com

[Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 --- Comment #2 from mjr19 at cam dot ac.uk --- Ah, I see. An inability to alternate negation with noop also means that conjugation is treated suboptimally. do i=1,n c(i)=conjg(c(i)) enddo Here gfortran-13 and -14 are differently subopt

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 --- Comment #6 from Segher Boessenkool --- Heh, crossed :-) I can confirm my patch works (tested and everything). I have no idea about zero_extract, which is a blight that should be eradicated tooth and nail!

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug ipa/113291] [14 Regression] compilation never (?) finishes with recursive always_inline functions at -O and above since r14-2172

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113291 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/114769] New: Suspicious code in vect_recog_sad_pattern()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114769 Bug ID: 114769 Summary: Suspicious code in vect_recog_sad_pattern() Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-04-18 Status|UNCONFIR

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- --- gcc/rtlanal.cc.jj 2024-02-24 12:45:28.674249100 +0100 +++ gcc/rtlanal.cc 2024-04-18 15:09:55.199499083 +0200 @@ -1637,12 +1637,15 @@ set_noop_p (const_rtx set) return true; if (MEM_P (dst

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- It's the combine pass that removes the seemingly noop-move. For QOI reasons GCC preserves volatile accesses elsewhere even when inconsistency is directly visible like here.

[Bug rtl-optimization/114768] New: Volatile reads can be optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114768 Bug ID: 114768 Summary: Volatile reads can be optimized away Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimiz

[Bug lto/114574] [14 regression] ICE when building curl with LTO (fld_incomplete_type_of, at ipa-free-lang-data.cc:257) since r14-9763

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574 --- Comment #30 from Martin Uecker --- Am Donnerstag, dem 18.04.2024 um 11:57 + schrieb jakub at gcc dot gnu.org: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574 > > --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to uecker from c

[Bug tree-optimization/114767] gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization Last reconfirmed

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 --- Comment #4 from Stijn De Weirdt --- hi jakub, thanks for the explanation. so if i understand this, the main thread/process of any binary linked with libgomp becomes an OpenMP thread, because of the libgomp constructor doing something. and

[Bug fortran/114767] New: gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114767 Bug ID: 114767 Summary: gfortran AVX2 complex multiplication by (0d0,1d0) suboptimal Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug rtl-optimization/114766] New: ^ constraint modifier unexpectedly affects register class selection.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114766 Bug ID: 114766 Summary: ^ constraint modifier unexpectedly affects register class selection. Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-op

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Stijn De Weirdt from comment #2) > apologies for my ignorance, but how is working as expected? i can't make > this up from the description of the variable; and it's unexpected since > there is n

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 --- Comment #2 from Stijn De Weirdt --- hi jakub, apologies for my ignorance, but how is working as expected? i can't make this up from the description of the variable; and it's unexpected since there is no openmp code being run (naively then;

[Bug lto/114574] [14 regression] ICE when building curl with LTO (fld_incomplete_type_of, at ipa-free-lang-data.cc:257) since r14-9763

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114574 --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to uecker from comment #28) > I do not fully understand yet what happens for may_alias, but it if we later > complete the struct with the may_alias attribute it seems we would also need > to updat

[Bug libgomp/114765] linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- That is how it should behave. Don't use OMP_PROC_BIND=true unless that is what you want...

[Bug libgomp/114765] New: linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114765 Bug ID: 114765 Summary: linking to libgomp and setting CPU_PROC_BIND causes affinity reset Product: gcc Version: 13.2.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/114761] Ignored [[likely]] attribute with multiple if statements doing the same thing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114761 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Zaitsev --- > Is this based on real code or you just was looking at the differences between > gcc and clang here? Really, not on a real code. I came up with this example when I found that GCC for this example does

[Bug c++/113706] c-c++-common/pr103798-2.c FAILs as C++

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113706 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Alexandre Oliva : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cc02ebfcfd0755b330c50a840ab713fedd6d8887 commit r14-10023-gcc02ebfcfd0755b330c50a840ab713fedd6d8887 Author: Alexandre Oliva Dat

[Bug libgcc/114762] wrong code with _BitInt() division by "BITINT_NN_MIN"

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114762 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/114741] [14 regression] aarch64 sve: unnecessary fmov for scalar int bit operations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114741 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

  1   2   >