[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #425 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #422) > Created attachment 59550 [details] > a trial patch for c#419 > > Looks a similar issue with c#404 but for the constant float load. Tested > de

[Bug fortran/109345] [12/13/14/15 Regression] class(*) variable that is a string array is not handled correctly

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109345 Paul Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pault at gcc dot gnu.org Assign

[Bug c/117469] returns_twice on defined functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117469 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > So if the tail-call uses [[musttail]] the alternative 3 should be "fine"? Yes, plus annotating the callees that return twice with the attribute is still require

[Bug c/117469] returns_twice on defined functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117469 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1 fr

[Bug target/117304] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.cc:4633 with -mavx10.1 and __builtin_ia32_cvtudq2ps512_mask()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117304 Hongtao Liu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/117304] ICE: in emit_move_insn, at expr.cc:4633 with -mavx10.1 and __builtin_ia32_cvtudq2ps512_mask()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117304 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Hu : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:05fd99e3d5e9f00e4e23596ed15a3cec2aaba128 commit r14-10895-g05fd99e3d5e9f00e4e23596ed15a3cec2aaba128 Author: Hu, Lin1 Date: Tue Nov

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 --- Comment #12 from Sebastian Huber --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #11) > Note again the only reason clang 17 from opensuse works is because it is > using GCC's libstdc++ from GCC 7 which is pre the fix for PR 58605 (which > was do

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- Note again the only reason clang 17 from opensuse works is because it is using GCC's libstdc++ from GCC 7 which is pre the fix for PR 58605 (which was done in GCC 10). And GCC 9.5.0 accepted the original te

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 --- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Sebastian Huber from comment #7) > This is not really great for C/C++ compatibility. Is there a way to get > statically initialized atomic integers using the standard C++20 ? Also please read t

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 --- Comment #7 from Sebastian Huber --- This is not really great for C/C++ compatibility. Is there a way to get statically initialized atomic integers using the standard C++20 ?

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 --- Comment #6 from Sebastian Huber --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > >It works with clang 17.0.6: > > It is rejected for me with both libstdc++ and libc++ with clang with > -std=c++20: > > :14:3: error: call to implicitly-dele

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Sebastian Huber changed: What|Removed |Added Version|12.4.0 |13.0 --- Comment #5 from Sebastian Hu

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Version|13.0|12.4.0 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinsk

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug c++/117475] C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/117475] New: C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117475 Bug ID: 117475 Summary: C++20: Union object with atomic integer cannot be statically initialized Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: norma

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #424 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #423) > > If I may ask one last question, could you give advise on this glibc bug that > affects SH? > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2

[Bug c++/61105] [constexpr] poor diagnostic for new-expression in constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61105 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic Summary|[constexpr

[Bug fortran/117474] Excessive memory usage during parser stage in interface blocks with types having type-bound procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117474 --- Comment #1 from Rimvydas (RJ) --- It seams there are no major memory leaks. $ valgrind --leak-check=full /usr/lib64/gcc/x86_64-suse-linux/14/f951 -I. test.f90 ... ==118405== 1,234,200 bytes in 4,675 blocks are definitely lost in loss record

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #423 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz --- (In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #422) > Created attachment 59550 [details] > a trial patch for c#419 > > Looks a similar issue with c#404 but for the constant float load. Tested > de

[Bug fortran/117474] New: Excessive memory usage during parser stage in interface blocks with types having type-bound procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117474 Bug ID: 117474 Summary: Excessive memory usage during parser stage in interface blocks with types having type-bound procedures Product: gcc Version: 14.2.1

[Bug tree-optimization/112376] [14/15 Regression] gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-dom-thread-7.c missed threading in aarch64 case

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112376 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/piperma

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #422 from Kazumoto Kojima --- Created attachment 59550 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59550&action=edit a trial patch for c#419 Looks a similar issue with c#404 but for the constant float load. Tested devel/sh-

[Bug target/55212] [SH] Switch to LRA

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212 --- Comment #421 from Kazumoto Kojima --- Created attachment 59549 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59549&action=edit a reduced test case for c#419 with "-m4 -mlra -O2 -std=c17 -fPIC -fno-math-errno -fno-signed-zeros -fno-tr

[Bug rtl-optimization/112398] Suboptimal code generation for xor pattern on subreg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112398 --- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law --- So Alexey's patch helps the first case, generating the more efficient lbu+xori sequence. I suspect it's not helping the 2nd case because the constant is going to be out of range. Given the 2nd case also s

[Bug c++/117472] pack of function parameters without a name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117472 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://github.com/llvm/llv

[Bug c++/117472] pack of function parameters without a name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117472 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug rtl-optimization/112398] Suboptimal code generation for xor pattern on subreg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112398 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jeff Law : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:69bd93c167fefbdff0cb88614275358b7a2b2941 commit r15-4991-g69bd93c167fefbdff0cb88614275358b7a2b2941 Author: Alexey Merzlyakov Date: We

[Bug bootstrap/117471] bootstrap error after r15-4985-g5c9de3df854768

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117471 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug fortran/117473] Issue with OpenMP workshare and -fsanitize=thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117473 --- Comment #1 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- Created attachment 59548 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59548&action=edit Fix missing initialization outside of the parallel region

[Bug fortran/117473] New: Issue with OpenMP workshare and -fsanitize=thread

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117473 Bug ID: 117473 Summary: Issue with OpenMP workshare and -fsanitize=thread Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug target/116371] The SME2 svpext intrinsics are missing a _lane suffix

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116371 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Tamar Christina : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97640e9632697b9f0ab31e4022d24d360d1ea2c9 commit r14-10893-g97640e9632697b9f0ab31e4022d24d360d1ea2c9 Author: Tamar Christ

[Bug c++/61105] [constexpr] accepts-invalid with new-expression in constant expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61105 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|paolo.carlini at oracle dot com|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/117470] new expression invalid size handling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117470 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this is PR 99934

[Bug c++/117472] New: pack of function parameters without a name

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117472 Bug ID: 117472 Summary: pack of function parameters without a name Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug fortran/117455] ld warning about executable stack, follows from PR 117434

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455 --- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle --- Info: -ftrampoline-impl=[stack|heap] By default, trampolines are generated on stack. However, certain platforms (such as the Apple M1) do not permit an executable stack. Compiling with -ftrampoline-imp

[Bug bootstrap/117471] bootstrap error after r15-4985-g5c9de3df854768

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117471 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build Ever confirmed|0

[Bug bootstrap/117471] New: bootstrap error after r15-4985-g5c9de3df854768

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117471 Bug ID: 117471 Summary: bootstrap error after r15-4985-g5c9de3df854768 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: b

[Bug c++/117470] New: new expression invalid size handling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117470 Bug ID: 117470 Summary: new expression invalid size handling Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/105863] RFE: C23 #embed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek --- What still isn't committed is the C++ optimization support of #embed. And, we need to decide what to do with the macro expansion for #embed, the current implementation isn't conformant (but maybe WG14 will

[Bug c/105863] RFE: C23 #embed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105863 Eli Schwartz changed: What|Removed |Added CC||eschwartz93 at gmail dot com --- Comment

[Bug rtl-optimization/117128] [15 regression] GCC trunk generates larger code than GCC 14 at -Os/Oz since r14-2161-g237e83e2158a3d

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117128 --- Comment #6 from Davide Italiano --- Yet another example: int f(int* a) { int sum = *a; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { if (i % 2 == 0 && (i > 3 || *a < 5)) { for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) { if (j > 2 && sum > 0) {

[Bug target/117278] [12/13/14/15 regression] Code at -Os is larger on trunk than GCC 11.4.0 since r12-6149-gdc1969dab39266

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117278 --- Comment #4 from Davide Italiano --- (In reply to Davide Italiano from comment #3) > Another example that I found while looking at this: > > int f(int* a) { > int sum = *a; > for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { > if (i % 2 == 0 && (i > 3

[Bug target/117278] [12/13/14/15 regression] Code at -Os is larger on trunk than GCC 11.4.0 since r12-6149-gdc1969dab39266

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117278 --- Comment #3 from Davide Italiano --- Another example that I found while looking at this: int f(int* a) { int sum = *a; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { if (i % 2 == 0 && (i > 3 || *a < 5)) { for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {

[Bug ipa/117432] [12/13/14/15 Regression] IPA ICF disregards types of variadic arguments since r10-4643-ga37f58f506e436

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117432 --- Comment #7 from Jan Hubicka --- Hash needs to be stable for LTO streaming which affects types. But at least we ought to compare types when we are comparing bodies in func_checker::compare_gimple_call. I guess for non-varadic calls this hap

[Bug target/117447] ICE in BPF GCC-trunk segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117447 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 fr

[Bug ipa/117440] [12/13/14/15 regression] ICE: in merge, at ipa-modref.cc:2138 at -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117440 --- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka --- OK, so the problem is that we analyze function body of g::f which is declared with pure attribute: modref analyzing 'virtual g* g::f() const/1' (ipa=0) (pure) Analyzing flags of ssa name: this_4(D) Analyzin

[Bug middle-end/111659] document that -Wstrict-flex-arrays depends on -ftree-vrp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111659 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug ipa/117440] [12/13/14/15 regression] ICE: in merge, at ipa-modref.cc:2138 at -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117440 --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka --- When processing covariant return thunk to g::f() const which is expanded to gimple we get stuck on: # .MEM_6 = VDEF <.MEM_4(D)> g::*.LTHUNK0 (this_5(D)); It fails on sanity check of EAF flags: /* Check tha

[Bug c/117469] New: returns_twice on defined functions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117469 Bug ID: 117469 Summary: returns_twice on defined functions Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c A

[Bug target/117366] arm thumb1 epilogue size optimizer violates -ffixed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117366 --- Comment #1 from Matt Parks --- Side note - just to eliminate an undocumented magic number, I'd also suggest the following diff in thumb1_extra_regs_pushed: - while(reg_base + n_free < 8 && ... + while(reg_base + n_free <= LAST_LO_REGNUM && .

[Bug libstdc++/111861] ranges::min/max should not use `auto __result = *__first;`

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111861 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c++/117466] brk #1000 rsp. ud2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117466 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/117468] New: arm thumb1 high reg restoration trashes register reserved with -ffixed-reg

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117468 Bug ID: 117468 Summary: arm thumb1 high reg restoration trashes register reserved with -ffixed-reg Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug tree-optimization/117467] [15 Regression] 521.wrf_r again explodes memory/compile-time wise

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117467 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/117467] New: [15 Regression] 521.wrf_r again explodes memory/compile-time wise

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117467 Bug ID: 117467 Summary: [15 Regression] 521.wrf_r again explodes memory/compile-time wise Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/115285] [12/13/14 Regression] std::unordered_set can have duplicate value

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115285 --- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to frs.dumont from comment #15) > It's surprising that we need to handle this use case. The user wants K > is to be explicitly built from int but then insert ints, weird. How else would you in

[Bug middle-end/115162] ICE in OpenMP target data map directive

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115162 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pins

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 Серёжа Празднов changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |INVALID

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 Серёжа Празднов changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|CLOSED Resolution|INVALID

[Bug middle-end/113724] [14/15 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 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added CC||Bert.Wesarg at googlemail dot com ---

[Bug fortran/117442] [15 Regression] Cannot build libgfortran with enable-gather-detailed-mem-stats after r15-4760-g0b73e9382ab51c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117442 --- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #3) > Sorry about the regression. Should be fixed by the above patch. No worries, thanks for a quick fix!

[Bug c++/117463] [12/13/14/15 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault at is_nondependent_constant_expression(tree_node*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117463 Simon Martin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug middle-end/117359] Stack pointer modifications in asm are not flagged in crtl->sp_is_unchanging

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117359 --- Comment #16 from Uroš Bizjak --- Some more discussion at [1]. [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-November/667718.html

[Bug c++/117465] New: Disable -Wnonnull-compare in macros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117465 Bug ID: 117465 Summary: Disable -Wnonnull-compare in macros Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/63388] cout of enum class value - segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63388 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:85736ba8e1fc4a5003f958dd268a155e379e059f commit r15-4983-g85736ba8e1fc4a5003f958dd268a155e379e059f Author: David Malcolm Date: We

[Bug c++/117466] New: brk #1000 rsp. ud2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117466 Bug ID: 117466 Summary: brk #1000 rsp. ud2 Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ Assignee: una

[Bug c++/63388] cout of enum class value - segmentation fault

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63388 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/115805] 436.cactusADM and 507.cactuBSSN_r miscompilation with -O2 generic -flto and some hardening options

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115805 --- Comment #3 from Filip Kastl --- I've just tried this on some older commits but still didn't find a commit without this behavior so I don't have evidence that this is a regression. The oldest commit I know where this behavior is present is r1

[Bug ipa/117440] [12/13/14/15 regression] ICE: in merge, at ipa-modref.cc:2138 at -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117440 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/117463] [12/13/14/15 Regression] internal compiler error: Segmentation fault at is_nondependent_constant_expression(tree_node*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117463 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Version|unknown |15.0 Priority|P3

[Bug middle-end/117459] ICE: in lower_stmt, at gimple-lower-bitint.cc:5714 with __builtin_assoc_barrier() on _BitInt(255)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117459 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Possibly. Maybe we should even diagnose such use?

[Bug tree-optimization/117439] [12/13/14 Regression] ICE in encode_tree_to_bitpos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117439 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] ICE

[Bug tree-optimization/117439] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in encode_tree_to_bitpos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117439 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6d8764cc1f938b3edee4ac26dc5d4d8dca74dc54 commit r15-4976-g6d8764cc1f938b3edee4ac26dc5d4d8dca74dc54 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: W

[Bug c/117456] ICE: in expand_expr_real_2, at expr.cc:10567 with __builtin_stdc_rotate_left() on bitfield or _BitInt() of non-mode size

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117456 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/117439] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in encode_tree_to_bitpos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117439 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:aab572240a0752da74029ed9f8918e0b1628e8ba commit r15-4975-gaab572240a0752da74029ed9f8918e0b1628e8ba Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: W

[Bug fortran/117455] ld warning about executable stack, follows from PR 117434

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117455 Iain Sandoe changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug target/116725] operand size mismatch for vfpclasssd and vfpclassss when using -masm=intel for AVX512 builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116725 --- Comment #10 from Sam James --- (In reply to Antoni from comment #9) > Sam, since I use -masm=intel in rustc_codegen_gcc, I fixed a few bugs and I > also test a lot of x86-specific intrinsics (since they're used in stdarch: > https://github.c

[Bug gcov-profile/103652] Producing profile with -O2 -flto and trying to consume it with -O3 -flto leads to ICEs on indirect call profiling

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103652 Petr Hruska (Nokia) changed: What|Removed |Added CC||petr.hruska at nokia dot com ---

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- You can place an compiler barrier after the update of the pointer though like so: ``` AllocatedMemBlocks[1].MemBlockPtr -= 10; asm("":::"memory"); ``` Which will "Fix" the issue but that is just wor

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I am not 100% sure but I am suspecting there is some aliasing issues with the code. Does -fno-strict-aliasing fix the issue? I suspect you are writing and then reading via two different types to the same m

[Bug rtl-optimization/117464] New: Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117464 Bug ID: 117464 Summary: Pointers mismatch after some pointer arithmetic (+ and - from base address) Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: