[Bug target/113954] Finish LRA transition for arc by removing -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113954 Segher Boessenkool changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug target/113954] Finish LRA transition for arc by removing -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113954 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- Indeed. I'm mostly interested in that being fixed in case people are using it as a safety blanket for unreported issues, or if there's some cleanups they're putting off doing.

[Bug target/113953] Finish LRA transition for s390 by removing -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113953 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stefansf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug target/113948] Switch rx to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113948 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org, |

[Bug c++/91464] C++ extern "C" namespace A {int value;}; is definition not declaration

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91464 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||15.0 Keywords|

[Bug target/113940] Switch mcore to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113940 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113945] Switch visium to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113945 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- ping

[Bug target/113940] Switch mcore to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113940 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aesok at pautinka dot net --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug target/113942] Switch msp430 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113942 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jozefl at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug target/113954] Finish LRA transition for arc by removing -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113954 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113938] Switch frv to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113938 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- ping

[Bug target/113935] Switch bfin to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113935 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gang.chen.5i5j at gmail dot com,

[Bug target/113943] Switch m32c to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113943 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113942] Switch msp430 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113942 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113941] Switch mn10300 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113941 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113937] Switch fr30 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113937 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113948] Switch rx to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113948 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113936] Switch c6x to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113936 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113933] Switch pa to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113933 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113945] Switch visium to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113945 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-19 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113944] Switch rl78 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113944 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-19 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113953] Finish LRA transition for s390 by removing -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113953 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-19 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113938] Switch frv to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113938 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/113952] Finish LRA transition for sparc by removing -mlra

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113952 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113935] Switch bfin to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113935 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/113946] Switch ft32 to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113946 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/84030] Name lookup in presence of namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84030 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/113933] Switch pa to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113933 --- Comment #2 from Segher Boessenkool --- (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #1) > On 2024-02-15 2:01 p.m., sjames at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > People are getting eager to require LRA. Please port the PA target to LRA > > (see > > PR113932

[Bug c++/58052] Copy initialization using conversion operator does not find correct candidates for initialization of final result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58052 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- GCC accepts this for C++17+ . I wonder what is causing the difference between C++14 and C++17 in GCC.

[Bug c++/116775] C++20 Coroutine await_suspend is unexpectedly executed when using in __builtin_constant_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775 孙思杰 changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||c++-coroutines --- Comment #1 from 孙思杰 --- build

[Bug c++/116775] New: C++20 Coroutine await_suspend is unexpectedly executed when using in __builtin_constant_p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116775 Bug ID: 116775 Summary: C++20 Coroutine await_suspend is unexpectedly executed when using in __builtin_constant_p Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/99497] _mm_min_ss/_mm_max_ss incorrect results when values known at compile time

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99497 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-19 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/96821] [concepts] Incorrect evaluation of concept with ill-formed expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/116765] [12/13/14/15 regression] gcc generate wrong code with -O3 -march=skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.5

[Bug c++/96821] [concepts] Incorrect evaluation of concept with ill-formed expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96821 --- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski --- So if I change constant_expression to be: ``` template concept constant_expression = (b, true); ``` I noticed that GCC and clang now have different output. I have seen this reported before too.

[Bug tree-optimization/116768] [12/13/14/15 regression] Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3 since r11-8581-g83758b7b67629e

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/99975] wrong variable alignment on a locally redeclared overaligned extern variable

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99975 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug c++/81349] Classes with deleted constructor templates incorrectly labeled as non-aggregates

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81349 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug c/87588] gcc does not warn about unused variable which references to itself

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87588 Martin Uecker changed: What|Removed |Added CC||muecker at gwdg dot de --- Comment #5 fr

[Bug rtl-optimization/116774] ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- If I had to bet, it's overheating.

[Bug rtl-optimization/116774] ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 --- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > The problem is that it's riscv (so 11 is prehistoric in that context) and > it's also a huge generated file. > > tbh, I suspect if you re-run the failing command, i

[Bug tree-optimization/91322] [10 regression] g++.dg/lto/alias-4_0.C test failure

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91322 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #18 fr

[Bug rtl-optimization/116774] ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- The difference is "code we might massage to make it compile" vs "no idea why the host compiler is ICEing", i.e. language support vs bugginess.

[Bug rtl-optimization/116774] ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug rtl-optimization/116774] ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 --- Comment #2 from Eric Gallager --- well, I mean, it *ought* to be possible to bootstrap with GCC 11 as the host compiler, right? The "transition to C++14" thread on the mailing lists was just talking about raising the requirement for the host

[Bug rtl-optimization/116774] ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |rtl-optimization Status|UNC

[Bug target/116774] New: ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116774 Bug ID: 116774 Summary: ICE bootstrapping on cfarm92 (a riscv64 machine) Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: build Severity: normal Priori

[Bug tree-optimization/116352] [15 regression] ICE when building opencv-4.9.0 (error: definition in block 208 does not dominate use in block 188) since r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection |needs-reduction --- Comment #16 from An

[Bug tree-optimization/116765] [12/13/14/15 regression] gcc generate wrong code with -O3 -march=skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-19 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug tree-optimization/116765] [12/13/14/15 regression] gcc generate wrong code with -O3 -march=skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||liuhongt at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #

[Bug c/116357] [12/13/14/15 Regression] The item's address of the array is not correct if aligned is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116357 --- Comment #6 from Alwin Zhang --- Thank you Richard for your detailed elaboration.

[Bug middle-end/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #12) It didn't this year. It was just a possible topic but we went in another direction.

[Bug middle-end/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032 --- Comment #12 from Eric Gallager --- I'm hearing this came up at Cauldron this year... I wasn't there, so could somebody who was summarize in this bug report for us?

[Bug c++/116769] Instantiation of defaulted default constructor with non default constructible NDSMIs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769 --- Comment #4 from Giuseppe D'Angelo --- Hi, thanks for investigating. That divergence is a bit worrying, I can't quite understand what's going on. Also, all compilers seem to accept this variation, which one would naively assume "equivalent"

[Bug tree-optimization/116352] [15 regression] ICE when building opencv-4.9.0 (error: definition in block 208 does not dominate use in block 188) since r15-2820-gab18785840d7b8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116352 --- Comment #15 from Sam James --- Note that the original still fails on trunk.

[Bug tree-optimization/116766] Missed loop vectorization case with gather/scatter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116766 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I thought I had saw this one before ...

[Bug middle-end/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 --- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski --- I am wondering if genmatch should generate the call to generic_expr_could_trap_p rather than adding it to the pattern because there could be more issues like this learking around.

[Bug middle-end/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- Created attachment 59143 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59143&action=edit Better reduced testcase Here is a better reduced testcase. The problem only shows up with these 2 patterns be

[Bug tree-optimization/116773] New: [meta-bug] TSVC missed optimizations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116773 Bug ID: 116773 Summary: [meta-bug] TSVC missed optimizations Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: meta-bug, missed-optimization Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/116754] libstdc++ std::ranges::copy performance issue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116754 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18 Assignee|unassig

[Bug middle-end/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- The easiest fix is to add: && !generic_expr_could_trap_p (@3) There but I am not sure if that will always work even though generic_expr_could_trap_p is recusive.

[Bug middle-end/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (_p0)) goto next_after_fail964; if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (_p1)) goto next_after_fail964; if (TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (_p2)) goto next_after_fail964; We check for SIDE_EFFECTS

[Bug middle-end/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/116772] [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 59142 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59142&action=edit test.cxx

[Bug c++/116772] New: [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116772 Bug ID: 116772 Summary: [15 regression] SIGFPE (branch optimised out) in eigen-3.4.0 testsuite Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: wrong-c

[Bug c++/116769] Instantiation of defaulted default constructor with non default constructible NDSMIs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Giuseppe D'Angelo from comment #2) > > * rejects the code due to the default constructor being invalid. > > That would be Clang? Yes sorry I forgot to mark it as such.

[Bug c++/116769] Instantiation of defaulted default constructor with non default constructible NDSMIs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769 --- Comment #2 from Giuseppe D'Angelo --- > * rejects the code due to the default constructor being invalid. That would be Clang?

[Bug c++/116756] ICE from expand_expr_real_1 with recursive lambda and constexpr if

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116756 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/116767] C const function pointer no code generated (or optimized out)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767 --- Comment #8 from Andreas Schwab --- That feature probably existed since the beginning, as a comment the glibc sources from 1994 in misc/sys/cdefs.h suggests. /* In GCC versions before 2.5, the `volatile' and `const' keywords have special

[Bug c++/116769] Instantiation of defaulted default constructor with non default constructible NDSMIs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116769 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- MSVC (and EDG) return true for is_default_constructible_v> . Which is different from clang. So in summary we have the following 3 behaviors: * accepts the code and is_default_constructible_v> value is tru

[Bug c++/116770] Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of' could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier matches the open namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/116770] Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of' could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier matches the open namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/114101] FAIL: 26_numerics/headers/cmath/functions_std_c++17.cc -std=gnu++17 (test for excess errors)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114101 John David Anglin changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #57529|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c++/116770] Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of' could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier matches the open namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- DR482

[Bug c++/116771] Missing suggestion on mispelled class name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116771 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18 Severity|normal

[Bug c++/116771] New: Missing suggestion on mispelled class name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116771 Bug ID: 116771 Summary: Missing suggestion on mispelled class name Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: easyhack Severity: normal Priori

[Bug tree-optimization/116768] [12/13/14/15 regression] Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Alisa Sireneva from comment #4) > With the new reproducer, this doesn't work on 11.4 Oh right I must have missed that when I moved over to the new testcase.

[Bug tree-optimization/116768] [12/13/14/15 regression] Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 Alisa Sireneva changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work|11.4.0 |11.1.0 --- Comment #4 from Alisa Siren

[Bug c/116767] C const function pointer no code generated (or optimized out)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767 --- Comment #7 from Martin Uecker --- I wonder whether there should be a warning when a declaration has the "const" attribute, but the actual definition does not.

[Bug c++/116770] Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of' could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier matches the open namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Keywords|

[Bug c/116767] C const function pointer no code generated (or optimized out)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/102051] [coroutines] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.c:2848

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102051 Torben Hohn changed: What|Removed |Added CC||torbenh at gmx dot de --- Comment #10 fro

[Bug c/116767] C const function pointer no code generated (or optimized out)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116767 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- This extension is documented: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-14.2.0/gcc/Const-and-Volatile-Functions.html

[Bug c/107942] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Documentation of the volatile style for noreturn is gone and const style for const attribute is gone

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107942 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|11.5|14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/116766] Missed loop vectorization case with gather/scatter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116766 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||53947 Severity|normal

[Bug libstdc++/116755] format and print functions prepend extra minus sign for min value of chrono duration type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755 --- Comment #13 from Zartaj Majeed --- Got it - compiler is latest package for Ubuntu 24.04 - I too wish they'd keep up

[Bug tree-optimization/116768] [12/13/14/15 regression] Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Here is a testcase which does NOT need -mavx to fail and fails on aarch64 too: ``` #define numwords 2 typedef struct { unsigned words[numwords]; } Child; typedef struct { Child child; } Parent; Parent

[Bug tree-optimization/116768] [12/13/14/15 regression] Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-09-18 Known to fail|

[Bug tree-optimization/116768] [12/13/14/15 regression] Strict aliasing breaks autovectorization with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- -fno-vect-cost-model hides it

[Bug libstdc++/116755] format and print functions prepend extra minus sign for min value of chrono duration type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely --- And I'm not saying *you* should use unsigned types, I'm saying std::format should cast it to unsigned.

[Bug c++/116741] ICE with invalid cast from void* in constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116741 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/116755] format and print functions prepend extra minus sign for min value of chrono duration type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Zartaj Majeed from comment #9) > Won't I have to separately add units to +d2.count()? No, I'm saying that the operator<< for duration should use +d.count() instead of d.count(), because that

[Bug libstdc++/51452] [DR 2116] is_nothrow_.*constructible bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452 --- Comment #21 from Marek Polacek --- Sigh, the DR 2116 in the title confused me...

[Bug libstdc++/51452] [DR 2116] is_nothrow_.*constructible bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51452 --- Comment #20 from Jonathan Wakely --- The core issue maybe, but LWG 2116 isn't, it's still open

[Bug c++/116770] New: Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of' could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier matches the open namespace

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116770 Bug ID: 116770 Summary: Diagnostic 'explicit qualification in declaration of' could be clearer when explicit namespace qualifier matches the open namespace Product: gcc

[Bug rtl-optimization/49330] Integer arithmetic on addresses optimised with pointer arithmetic rules

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49330 Namniav changed: What|Removed |Added CC||namniav at gmail dot com --- Comment #34 from

[Bug libstdc++/116755] format and print functions prepend extra minus sign for min value of chrono duration type

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116755 --- Comment #10 from Zartaj Majeed --- Just tried unsigned duration with system_clock - I guess the requirement for signed Rep is for the default duration - could this have any legitimate use? Or should there be a warning? auto t1 = time_point>

[Bug c++/107390] template-nested lambda type uniqueness

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107390 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Target Milestone|---

[Bug tree-optimization/116765] [12/13/14/15 regression] gcc generate wrong code with -O3 -march=skylake

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116765 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|gcc generate wrong code |[12/13/14/15 regression]

  1   2   3   >