[Bug target/111376] missed optimization of one bit test on MIPS32r1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376 --- Comment #13 from YunQiang Su --- I try to insert li $3, 500 li $5, 500 between SLL/BGEZ and LUI+AND/BNE. The later is still some faster on Loongson 3A4000. I notice something like this in 74K's software manual:

[Bug target/115485] CASEServer.cpp:203:1: internal compiler error: in require_pic_register, at config/arm/arm.c:7855

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485 --- Comment #8 from Gang Peng --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6) > if (!crtl->uses_pic_offset_table || compute_now) > { > gcc_assert (can_create_pseudo_p () > || (pic_reg != NULL_RTX >

[Bug libcc1/105695] GCC 10.3.1 (20220519) build failure with GCC 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105695 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Status|NEW

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||114930 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- A

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 --- Comment #5 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Ah right, thank you! This I where the front end checking was added. Makes sense now. So I think this is a dup of PR114930, but not detected by the FE.

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- It bisected to that commit.

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 --- Comment #3 from uecker at gcc dot gnu.org --- How is this commit related? This seems more likely to be the same issue as PR114930.

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227) since r15-934-gd2cfe8a73b3c41

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 regression] ICE when|[15 regression] ICE when

[Bug target/111376] missed optimization of one bit test on MIPS32r1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376 --- Comment #12 from Siarhei Volkau --- Highly likely it's because of data dependency, and not direct cost of shift operations on LoongArch, although can't find information to prove that. So, I guess it still might get performance benefit in cas

[Bug c++/115501] [13/14/15 Regression] ICE: in build_call_a with dynamic_cast after invalid definition of __cxxabiv1::__dynamic_cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppalka at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c++/115501] [13/14/15 Regression] ICE: in build_call_a with dynamic_cast after invalid definition of __cxxabiv1::__dynamic_cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Confirmed. The ICE started in GCC 13. Before it was accepted.

[Bug c++/115501] [13/14/15 Regression] ICE: in build_call_a with dynamic_cast after invalid definition of __cxxabiv1::__dynamic_cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/115501] ICE: in build_call_a, at cp/call.cc:370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||error-recovery, |

[Bug c/115502] [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115502 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- ``` typedef struct _OSet OSet; typedef OSet AvlTree; void vgPlain_OSetGen_Lookup(const OSet *); struct _OSet {}; void vgPlain_OSetGen_Lookup(const AvlTree *); ```

[Bug c/115502] New: [15 regression] ICE when building Valgrind with -std=c23 (comptypes_same_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1227)

-host-pie --enable-host-bind-now --enable-default-ssp --disable-fixincludes --with-build-config='bootstrap-O3 bootstrap-lto' Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 15.0.0 20240614 (experimental) 1bb2535c7cb279e6aab731e79080d8486dd50cce (Ge

[Bug c/115501] New: ICE: in build_call_a, at cp/call.cc:370

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115501 Bug ID: 115501 Summary: ICE: in build_call_a, at cp/call.cc:370 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/115500] RISC-V: Performance regression on 1bit test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115500 --- Comment #3 from YunQiang Su --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > The big question is non zbs riscv arch matter any more? I have no idea. This is the Debian's porterbox, so I guess it meets the requirement of Debian's RV64 port

[Bug target/115500] RISC-V: Performance regression on 1bit test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115500 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- The big question is non zbs riscv arch matter any more?

[Bug target/115500] RISC-V: Performance regression on 1bit test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115500 --- Comment #1 from YunQiang Su --- Talks about MIPS here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376

[Bug target/115500] New: RISC-V: Performance regression on 1bit test

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115500 Bug ID: 115500 Summary: RISC-V: Performance regression on 1bit test Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: targ

[Bug target/111376] missed optimization of one bit test on MIPS32r1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376 YunQiang Su changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/111376] missed optimization of one bit test on MIPS32r1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111376 --- Comment #10 from YunQiang Su --- I have some performance test. sll+bgez is some slower than lui+and+beqz. On Loongson 3A4000, it is about 10%. So this "optimization" makes sense only for -Os.

[Bug target/115485] CASEServer.cpp:203:1: internal compiler error: in require_pic_register, at config/arm/arm.c:7855

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 58435 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58435&action=edit single file

[Bug target/115485] CASEServer.cpp:203:1: internal compiler error: in require_pic_register, at config/arm/arm.c:7855

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- if (!crtl->uses_pic_offset_table || compute_now) { gcc_assert (can_create_pseudo_p () || (pic_reg != NULL_RTX && REG_P (pic_reg) && G

[Bug tree-optimization/115499] Missed optimization: Fold (a ^ (b || c)) && c to (a ^ 1) && c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115499 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Severity|normal

[Bug c++/115499] New: Missed optimization: Fold (a ^ (b || c)) && c to (a ^ 1) && c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115499 Bug ID: 115499 Summary: Missed optimization: Fold (a ^ (b || c)) && c to (a ^ 1) && c Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: missed-optimizat

[Bug c++/94162] ICE [neg] bad return type in defaulted <=>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94162 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/114430] [11/12/13/14/15 regression] False positive for -Wformat-overflow

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114430 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/114253] [11/12/13/14/15 regression] False positive maybe-uninitialized with std::optional and ternary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114253 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|False positive |[11/12/13/14/15 regression]

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/112296] __builtin_constant_p is always false for an argument with possible side-effects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112296 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/108860] [12/13/14/15 regression] New (since gcc 12) false positive null-dereference in vector.resize

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108860 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|New (since gcc 12) false|[12/13/14/15 regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/108467] false positive -Wmaybe-uninitialized warning at -O1 or higher

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108467 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug middle-end/115498] Missing warning for comparing distinct (char*) pointers in much complex code path

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115498 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/115498] New: Missing warning for comparing distinct (char*) pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115498 Bug ID: 115498 Summary: Missing warning for comparing distinct (char*) pointers Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug target/115485] CASEServer.cpp:203:1: internal compiler error: in require_pic_register, at config/arm/arm.c:7855

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485 --- Comment #5 from Gang Peng --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > >GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain 10.3-2021.10 > > I looked into the official releases of GCC 10.3.0 and arm.c:7855 does not > correspond to a place where an assert happe

[Bug tree-optimization/96447] [11/12 regression] False positive -Wstringop-overflow with -O3 due to loop unrolling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96447 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org Summary

[Bug middle-end/106661] [11/12 regression] possible uninitialized variable usage in store_bit_field_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106661 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/115125] [-Wstringop-overflow=] with O2/O3 - false positive?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115125 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- I see -Warray-bounds with 12/13/14/15. I don't see -Wstringop-overflow at all here.

[Bug middle-end/106661] [11/12 regression] possible uninitialized variable usage in store_bit_field_1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106661 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|possible uninitialized |[11/12 regression] possible

[Bug tree-optimization/115492] [15 Regression] wrong code at -O2/O3 since r15-204-g7c469a9fc78550

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115492 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/115484] [13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mil

[Bug tree-optimization/115484] [13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #2) > GCC 8 vectorises it: https://godbolt.org/z/Y8Pvxsh5c. The if-to-switch was not until GCC 11: r11-5605-g03eb09292ef228. What made GCC 9 fail was the conversion from

[Bug tree-optimization/115484] [13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- Not only does 8 vectorise it, but so does GCC 11, GCC 12. So, 9/10/13/14/15 are broken.

[Bug tree-optimization/115484] [13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[11/12/13/14/15 regression] |[13/14/15 regression] |if

[Bug tree-optimization/115484] [11/12/13/14/15 regression] if-to-switch prevents AVX vectorization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115484 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|if-to-switch prevents AVX |[11/12/13/14/15 regression]

[Bug c/115489] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.cc:589

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115489 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug c/115489] ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in create_tmp_from_val, at gimplify.cc:589

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115489 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c++/115053] gcc crashed without back trace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115053 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-06-15 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/115053] gcc crashed without back trace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115053 --- Comment #3 from Chromo Runge --- (In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #1) > Can't reproduce: > > $ time ./cc1plus -quiet 115053.C -std=c++20 > > real 0m0.016s > user 0m0.010s > sys 0m0.006s > > same with gcc 14 and 13. It seems th

[Bug tree-optimization/115492] [15 Regression] wrong code at -O2/O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115492 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||alias --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski

[Bug c++/115053] gcc crashed without back trace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115053 --- Comment #2 from Chromo Runge --- Created attachment 58434 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58434&action=edit local crash

[Bug tree-optimization/115492] [15 Regression] wrong code at -O2/O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115492 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 fr

[Bug fortran/115491] Internal compiler error: in resolve_typebound_procedure, at fortran/resolve.cc:14913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115491 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/115492] [15 Regression] wrong code at -O2/O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115492 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/115495] [15 Regression] ICE in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.cc:356 during combine on RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note in most cases `(subreg:DI (reg:V16HI 139 [ vect_cst__21 ]) 0) (const_int 16 [0x10])` would normally be a `vec_select` so I am shock that it is using a subreg here ...

[Bug rtl-optimization/115495] [15 Regression] ICE in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.cc:356 during combine on RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/115495] [15 Regression] ICE in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.cc:356 during combine on RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 CC|

[Bug target/115393] MIPS: implement _BitInt of C23

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115393 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ABI Severity|normal

[Bug target/115485] CASEServer.cpp:203:1: internal compiler error: in require_pic_register, at config/arm/arm.c:7855

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115485 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- >GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain 10.3-2021.10 I looked into the official releases of GCC 10.3.0 and arm.c:7855 does not correspond to a place where an assert happens. You should file this bug with the folks who

[Bug libstdc++/115497] [15 Regression] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug fortran/115491] Internal compiler error: in resolve_typebound_procedure, at fortran/resolve.cc:14913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115491 --- Comment #2 from Dom Heinzeller --- (In reply to kargls from comment #1) > (In reply to Dom Heinzeller from comment #0) > > I am working on a fairly complicated modeling code used by the U.S. Naval > > Research Lab and I am hitting internal c

[Bug libstdc++/115497] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Mital Ashok from comment #4) > Forcing it to be an expression in the first place does let it compile: > > template > struct is_pointer : ts(__is_pointer(_Tp))> {}; Ah nice, we can

[Bug libstdc++/115497] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- I suppose we can just include at the top of , we could even make that conditional on __clang__

[Bug libstdc++/115497] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 Mital Ashok changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/115497] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 --- Comment #6 from Andi Kleen --- Yes a # check would need to be target dependent.

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||87403 Severity|normal

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- # can also start a number in aarch64 and arm assembly and not a comment. So NO `#` is not universally starts a comment.

[Bug libstdc++/115497] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Ok, clang behavior is an odd one here: ``` template struct __is_pointer {}; template inline bool t = __is_pointer(_Tp); template struct ts{}; template struct is_pointer : ts<__is_pointer(_Tp)> {}; in

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 --- Comment #4 from David Malcolm --- A possible input to the logic could be: be more paranoid about strings that will be used by inline asm. (In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #3) > When writing inline assembler an alternative to \n is to us

[Bug libstdc++/115497] __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654499.html

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multiline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 --- Comment #3 from Andi Kleen --- When writing inline assembler an alternative to \n is to use ; as separator e.g. asm("movl $1,%eax ; " "movl %eax,%ebx") there can be also comment mistake here like asm("movl $1,%eax # comment ;" "

[Bug target/113341] Using GCC as the bootstrap compiler breaks LLVM on 32-bit PowerPC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113341 --- Comment #10 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #9) > Since it's a breakage during stage2, it's concluded that some built stage1 > stuffs behave unexpectedly. You probably can try to run regression testing

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 --- Comment #2 from Andi Kleen --- It would need some heuristic that if the line nearly fills a standard line length (how defined) don't trigger it. Otherwise people breaking the string due to line length restrictions might trigger it incorrectl

[Bug c/115496] RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 --- Comment #1 from David Malcolm --- gcc's diagnostic-show-locus.cc has lots of examples of such literals (in the selftests)

[Bug libstdc++/115497] New: __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115497 Bug ID: 115497 Summary: __is_pointer doesn't compile with clang since 014879ea4c86b3b8ab6b61a1226ee5b31e816c8b Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED S

[Bug c/115496] New: RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multline string literals

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115496 Bug ID: 115496 Summary: RFE: new warning to detect suspicious multline string literals Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu since r14-3485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug c/105863] RFE: C23 #embed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/654740.html

[Bug middle-end/115495] New: [15 Regression] ICE in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.cc:356 during combine on RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b at -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115495 Bug ID: 115495 Summary: [15 Regression] ICE in smallest_mode_for_size, at stor-layout.cc:356 during combine on RISC-V rv64gcv_zvl256b at -O3 Product: gcc Version

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu since r14-3485

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > Hmm. disabling: > > /* x | C -> C if we know that x & ~C == 0. */ > (simplify > (bit_ior SSA_NAME@0 INTEGER_CST@1) > (if (INTEGRAL_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (@0)) >

[Bug c/108753] '-Wduplicated-cond' doesn't diagnose duplicated subexpressions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108753 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Making this work should hopefully be fairly easy: add a tree walk on the operands of || and && and compare them to the previous condition?

[Bug c/67819] -Wduplicated-cond should take macros into account

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67819 --- Comment #8 from Marek Polacek --- -Wduplicated-branches has the same problem, see .

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org Ke

[Bug target/115458] [15 regression] [RISC-V] ICE in lra_split_hard_reg_for, at lra-assigns.cc:1868 unable to find a register to spill since r15-518-g99b1daae18c095

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115458 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/115385] Peeling for gaps can be optimized more or needs to peel more than one iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115385 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 fr

[Bug fortran/115491] Internal compiler error: in resolve_typebound_procedure, at fortran/resolve.cc:14913

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115491 kargls at comcast dot net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kargls at comcast dot net --

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] [14/15 Regression] wrong code at -O{2,3} on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-06-14 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] wrong code at -O{2,3} with "-fno-ssa-phiopt" on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- Note changing main to f and you get the failure even without `-fno-ssa-phiopt`.

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] wrong code at -O{2,3} with "-fno-ssa-phiopt" on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115494 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 58433 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58433&action=edit Testcase that uses abort

[Bug target/115419] [avr] IEEE double round-to-nearest should go to even

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115419 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/115419] [avr] IEEE double round-to-nearest should go to even

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115419 --- Comment #1 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Georg-Johann Lay : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2830b0b8655f0d1a62b416af8ade31f5b96f0ffb commit r15-1343-g2830b0b8655f0d1a62b416af8ade31f5b96f0ffb Author: Georg-Johann Lay Dat

[Bug tree-optimization/115494] New: wrong code at -O{2,3} with "-fno-ssa-phiopt" on x86_64-linux-gnu (the generated code hangs)

igure --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=yes --prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-sanitizers --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --enable-multilib Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib gcc version 15.0.0 20240614 (experimental) (GCC) [628] % [6

[Bug libstdc++/110572] ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: std::type_info::operator==(std::type_info const&) const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- No, this only helps for mingw-g++. Only the change from comment 7 has been committed. As noted in comment 9, the incorrect macro definition for clang still causes problems. We either need to work around

[Bug testsuite/115443] aarch64: Test gcc.dg/vect/pr99102.c FAIL

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115443 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- This was with GCC 14 but I bet trunk behaves the same.

[Bug libstdc++/110572] ld.lld: error: duplicate symbol: std::type_info::operator==(std::type_info const&) const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110572 --- Comment #14 from Martin Storsjö --- (In reply to GCC Commits from comment #13) > The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6af8d8e618ed27dae3432c96484de4360bd893ab > > commit r15-1342-g6af8d8e618ed27

[Bug tree-optimization/115385] Peeling for gaps can be optimized more or needs to peel more than one iteration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115385 Carlos Eduardo Seo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||carlos.seo at linaro dot org --- C

[Bug c/115488] __has_include with empty filename

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115488 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/115481] HAVE_* for long double math functions wrong for avrlibc (target AVR)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115481 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

  1   2   >