[Bug fortran/102689] Segfault with RESHAPE of CLASS as actual argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102689 --- Comment #7 from Paul Thomas --- Created attachment 59839 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59839&action=edit Instrumtented class_transformational_2.f90 Hi Christophe, Would you be so kind as to try compiling and running

[Bug bootstrap/94089] fixincludes of breaks gcc after glibc-2.31 upgrade

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94089 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Fixed-Headers.html

[Bug bootstrap/94089] fixincludes of breaks gcc after glibc-2.31 upgrade

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94089 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug bootstrap/118009] Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug bootstrap/118009] Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- fixincludes itself has been installed since 2004 for GCC 4.0.0 release: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2004-November/154456.html

[Bug bootstrap/118009] Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-12-12 Status|UNCONFIRM

[Bug bootstrap/118009] Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > This does not make sense: > > When GCC was built w/ fixincludes enabled, an old fixincluded'd version of > > the headers is used which has the old time64 macro, and

[Bug pch/118009] New: Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 Bug ID: 118009 Summary: Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UN

[Bug bootstrap/118009] Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- This does not make sense: > When GCC was built w/ fixincludes enabled, an old fixincluded'd version of > the headers is used which has the old time64 macro, and therefore > __pthread_cond_timedwait64 isn't

[Bug driver/117992] gcc -pie -fhardened leads to warning, causing gcc -flto -fhardened to warn if --enable-default-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117992 --- Comment #13 from Xi Ruoyao --- Some messy things: - Among -r, -pie, -no-pie, -static-pie, and -shared, only the last one specified is effective. (I.e. -r -pie -no-pie -static-pie -shared -pie is just -pie). - But -static is different and m

[Bug bootstrap/118009] Obsolete fixincludes hack for glibc-2.3.3 interferes with 64-bit time_t changes in modern glibc's pthread.h

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118009 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- (Sorry, didn't mean to pick pch, meant to do other but wasn't really sure where it fit.)

[Bug target/118008] [14/15 regression] ICE when bootstrapping with Go on arm (gen_movdi, at config/arm/arm.md:6296)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118008 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- Concatenating the files, merging the 'import ('s manually, then running gofmt seems to get me a bit further with that, but not standalone yet.

[Bug target/118008] [14/15 regression] ICE when bootstrapping with Go on arm (gen_movdi, at config/arm/arm.md:6296)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118008 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- (Anyone know if there's a way to get "preprocessed" source or something standalone for Go? Or maybe it's possible to just dump the gimple instead as a last-resort, if it comes to that?)

[Bug target/118008] [14/15 regression] ICE when bootstrapping with Go on arm (gen_movdi, at config/arm/arm.md:6296)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118008 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 59838 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59838&action=edit build.log.xz

[Bug target/118008] New: [14/15 regression] ICE when bootstrapping with Go on arm (gen_movdi, at config/arm/arm.md:6296)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118008 Bug ID: 118008 Summary: [14/15 regression] ICE when bootstrapping with Go on arm (gen_movdi, at config/arm/arm.md:6296) Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug target/117150] mstack-protector-guard-symbol= is not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117150 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug target/117150] mstack-protector-guard-symbol= is not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117150 --- Comment #3 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Sandra Loosemore : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fa878dc8c45fa30aeeaafbe8ab2ff2bae3fbb572 commit r15-6128-gfa878dc8c45fa30aeeaafbe8ab2ff2bae3fbb572 Author: Sandra Loosemore Dat

[Bug middle-end/118007] ICE when building ruby-3.2.5 with -fstrub=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118007 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- ``` void rb_ec_error_print(struct rb_execution_context_struct *volatile) {} ```

[Bug target/117150] mstack-protector-guard-symbol= is not documented

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117150 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug middle-end/118007] ICE when building ruby-3.2.5 with -fstrub=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118007 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||ice-checking --- Comment #2 from Andrew

[Bug middle-end/118007] ICE when building ruby-3.2.5 with -fstrub=all

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118007 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- (gdb) frame 1 #1 0x56592cb3 in (anonymous namespace)::pass_ipa_strub::execute (this=) at /usr/src/debug/sys-devel/gcc-15.0./gcc-15.0./gcc/ipa-strub.cc:2889 2889 gcc_checking_assert

[Bug driver/117992] gcc -fpie -fhardened leads to warning, causing gcc -flto -fhardened to warn if --enable-default-pie

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117992 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2024-12-12 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/118007] New: ICE when building ruby-3.2.5 with -fstrub=all

t-pie --enable-host-pie --enable-host-bind-now --enable-default-ssp --disable-fixincludes --with-build-config='bootstrap-lto bootstrap-cet' Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 15.0.0 20241211 (experimental) e5569a20cf3791553ac324269001a7c7c0e

[Bug middle-end/118006] ICE when building rr-5.8.0 with -fstrub=all (RTL check: expected elt 2 type 'B', have '0' (rtx barrier) in BLOCK_FOR_INSN, at rtl.h:1499)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118006 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- Maybe this is good enough: ``` __attribute__((noipa)) long _raw_syscall(void *, long, long) { __builtin_abort(); } static int privileged_traced_syscall() { return _raw_syscall(0, 0, 0); } __at

[Bug middle-end/118006] ICE when building rr-5.8.0 with -fstrub=all (RTL check: expected elt 2 type 'B', have '0' (rtx barrier) in BLOCK_FOR_INSN, at rtl.h:1499)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118006 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Reduced but it isn't valid (noreturn): ``` long _raw_syscall(void *, long, long); static int privileged_traced_syscall() { return _raw_syscall(0, 0, 0); } __attribute__((noreturn)) void privileged_traced_raise()

[Bug rtl-optimization/117999] [15 regression] libgo failures on arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117999 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[15 regression] libgo |[15 regression] libgo

[Bug rtl-optimization/117999] [15 regression] libgo regressions on arm after r15-5997-g75e7d1600f4785

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117999 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- I'd added needs-bisection because of Vlad's comment (he doesn't think this is the real commit to blame).

[Bug rtl-optimization/117999] [15 regression] libgo regressions on arm after r15-5997-g75e7d1600f4785

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117999 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection |ra Summary|[15 regression] l

[Bug middle-end/117091] switch clustering takes extensive time with large switches even at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117091 --- Comment #22 from Sam James --- Are we keeping this one open for the improvement mentioned in https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/z1gdhpphod-5m...@fkdesktop.suse.cz/?

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski --- You could put all of the internal functions in a header file which only gets included for the internal case and not install that header file ...

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski --- We have been warning about noinline and inline since the noinline attribute was added back in r0-37987-g9162542e3d0cd2 . When noipa was added (r8-2213-g036ea39917b0ef) we had the same warning there. Since

[Bug target/117926] [14 Regression] emits 3dnow (MMX) instruction from autovectorized GIMPLE without emms at -O2 since r14-2786-gade30fad6669e5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117926 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug d/117995] [15 regression] Regression in libphobos tests on arm after g:0547dbb725b6d8e878a79e28a2e171eafcfbc1aa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117995 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Keywords|

[Bug rtl-optimization/117999] [15 regression] libgo regressions on arm after g:75e7d1600f47859df40b2ac0feff5a71e0dbb040

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117999 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Keywords|

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #11 from Sam James --- Perhaps it makes sense to only set these when building under a static analyser then.

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #12 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #11) > Perhaps it makes sense to only set these when building under a static > analyser then. GCC does itself have some static analysing features via compiler diagno

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #10 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #9) > If they're internals, building the library with LTO and correct visibility > annotations should handle that for you if you mean "I want inlining > internally, b

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #9 from Sam James --- If they're internals, building the library with LTO and correct visibility annotations should handle that for you if you mean "I want inlining internally, but not for consumers".

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #8 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #7) > (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #6) > > (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > > > The boundary doesn't exist if it's being inlined. > > > > [[gn

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #7 from Sam James --- (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #6) > (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > > The boundary doesn't exist if it's being inlined. > > [[gnu::noipa]] is stronger and prevents any inlining (it's bas

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- The boundary doesn't exist if it's being inlined.

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #6 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #3) > The boundary doesn't exist if it's being inlined. [[gnu::noipa]] is stronger and prevents any inlining (it's basically telling the compiler to ignore 'inline').

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Alejandro Colomar from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > So noipa implies noinline. > > Hmmm, I thought it could be considered something like >

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #4 from Alejandro Colomar --- Maaaybe I could do the following instead, I guess. I will probably do it anyway, for compatibility with old GCC versions. I little bit more cpp(1), but that's okay-ish too, I guess. // : #if (FOO_INT

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 --- Comment #2 from Alejandro Colomar --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > So noipa implies noinline. Hmmm, I thought it could be considered something like , where you're showing

[Bug rtl-optimization/118006] New: ICE when building rr-5.8.0 with -fstrub=all (RTL check: expected elt 2 type 'B', have '0' (rtx barrier) in BLOCK_FOR_INSN, at rtl.h:1499)

le-default-ssp --disable-fixincludes --with-build-config='bootstrap-lto bootstrap-cet' Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 15.0.0 20241211 (experimental) e5569a20cf3791553ac324269001a7c7c0e56242 (Gentoo 15.0. p, commit bab06f8fff99acedad7703b604dd781a0f5554a0) ```

[Bug rtl-optimization/118006] ICE when building rr-5.8.0 with -fstrub=all (RTL check: expected elt 2 type 'B', have '0' (rtx barrier) in BLOCK_FOR_INSN, at rtl.h:1499)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118006 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 59836 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59836&action=edit syscallbuf.c.i.xz

[Bug c/118005] Diagnostic for mixing noipa and inline mentions nonline rather noipa

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Incorrect diagnostic|Diagnostic for mixing noipa

[Bug c/118005] New: Incorrect diagnostic combining [[gnu::noipa]] and inline

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118005 Bug ID: 118005 Summary: Incorrect diagnostic combining [[gnu::noipa]] and inline Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug c++/114128] ice with -fstrub=internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114128 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/112938] ice with -fstrub=internal

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112938 --- Comment #13 from Sam James --- *** Bug 114128 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/117985] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.cc:3308

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117985 --- Comment #4 from Marek Polacek --- I think this uncovered a latent bug, one probably fixable by: --- a/gcc/cp/init.cc +++ b/gcc/cp/init.cc @@ -5109,6 +5109,8 @@ build_vec_init (tree base, tree maxindex, tree init, { if (!saw_non_

[Bug tree-optimization/114999] A few missing optimizations due to `a - b` and `b - a` not being detected as negatives of each other

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114999 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Jennifer Schmitz from comment #10) See PR 113265 for a start of a patch. I didn't have time to finish it up yet.

[Bug libstdc++/109976] error: is not a constant expression in std::equal() with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109976 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec commit r15-6126-g9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/109517] Failure to compile constexpr std::copy with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109517 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec commit r15-6126-g9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/106212] Code becomes non-constexpr with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec commit r15-6126-g9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/117966] [12/13/14/15 regression] constexpr std::span construction fails to compile with D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966 --- Comment #11 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec commit r15-6126-g9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec Author: Jonathan Wakely Date

[Bug c++/85944] Address of temporary at global scope not considered constexpr

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85944 --- Comment #14 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec commit r15-6126-g9616deb23a17ebe81ad89ede191d7f9f752abdec Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/106212] Code becomes non-constexpr with _GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106212 --- Comment #7 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3aeb2edee2f9fc39ab77c7e020f09d7204b167ac commit r15-6125-g3aeb2edee2f9fc39ab77c7e020f09d7204b167ac Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/117966] [12/13/14/15 regression] constexpr std::span construction fails to compile with D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117966 --- Comment #10 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e95bda027e0b81922c1bf44770674190bdf787e8 commit r15-6124-ge95bda027e0b81922c1bf44770674190bdf787e8 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date

[Bug tree-optimization/118004] missing -Wuninitialized for printf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118004 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Forgot to mention this is forwarded from https://www.reddit.com/r/gcc/comments/1hbxudm/no_warning_when_using_uninitialized_local_variable/ .

[Bug tree-optimization/118004] New: missing -Wuninitialized for printf

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118004 Bug ID: 118004 Summary: missing -Wuninitialized for printf Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic, false-negative Severity: enhancement

[Bug ada/117956] assertion failure on 'Old in post-condition with -gnat2022

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117956 --- Comment #4 from simon at pushface dot org --- (In reply to simon from comment #1) > It’s the -gnatX. It seems to be the combination of -gnata with either -gnat2022 or -gnatX -- and this package doesn’t need either!

[Bug libstdc++/118003] New: std::filesystem::remove_all() hangs on Windows on directories containing a deep tree with long paths

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118003 Bug ID: 118003 Summary: std::filesystem::remove_all() hangs on Windows on directories containing a deep tree with long paths Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug rtl-optimization/116778] [lra][avr] Wrong code with -mlra (bitfld-lra.c)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116778 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Vladimir Makarov : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:fca0ab08cd936464b152e9b45356f625eba27575 commit r15-6122-gfca0ab08cd936464b152e9b45356f625eba27575 Author: Vladimir N. Makarov

[Bug rtl-optimization/117999] libgo regressions on arm after g:75e7d1600f47859df40b2ac0feff5a71e0dbb040

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117999 Vladimir Makarov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comm

[Bug sanitizer/115127] [12/13/14/15 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_ctz() check sometimes missing since r12-151

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug gcov-profile/116743] [12/13/14/15 regression] Commit r12-5817-g3d9e6767939e96 causes ~10% perf regression w AutoFDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743 --- Comment #22 from Eugene Rozenfeld --- Rama, thank you for confirming this fixes your perf regression. I'll be on vacation for the rest of December but will get this completed and ported after New Year.

[Bug libfortran/117819] Formatted READ with BZ in format fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117819 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug gcov-profile/116743] [12/13/14/15 regression] Commit r12-5817-g3d9e6767939e96 causes ~10% perf regression w AutoFDO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116743 --- Comment #21 from Rama Malladi --- Hi Eugene, We verified that the GCC patch restores the PGO performance gain. The HammerDB workload shows an 11% PGO performance gain with the fix, compared to a 2% gain without the fix. Thanks for the fix.

[Bug fortran/117901] [15 regression] class_transformational_1.f90 with -O3 and -fcheck=bounds gives ICE in make_ssa_name_fn

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117901 --- Comment #9 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Paul Thomas : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:bbb7c53d32ece75ec0c336663ec37df9e63652d3 commit r15-6121-gbbb7c53d32ece75ec0c336663ec37df9e63652d3 Author: Paul Thomas Date: Wed D

[Bug middle-end/117352] [15 Regression] switch bit test conversion makes comparison code worse on aarch64 and x86_64 with APX due to not generating ccmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117352 Filip Kastl changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/117352] [15 Regression] switch bit test conversion makes comparison code worse on aarch64 and x86_64 with APX due to not generating ccmp

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117352 --- Comment #5 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Filip Kastl : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56946c801a7cf3a831a11870b7e11ba08bf9bd87 commit r15-6120-g56946c801a7cf3a831a11870b7e11ba08bf9bd87 Author: Filip Kastl Date: Wed D

[Bug middle-end/117091] switch clustering takes extensive time with large switches even at -O0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117091 --- Comment #21 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Filip Kastl : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56946c801a7cf3a831a11870b7e11ba08bf9bd87 commit r15-6120-g56946c801a7cf3a831a11870b7e11ba08bf9bd87 Author: Filip Kastl Date: Wed

[Bug libfortran/117819] Formatted READ with BZ in format fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117819 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The releases/gcc-14 branch has been updated by Jerry DeLisle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2d9dbaf06e4cd83125781d1eb760f5404da3d175 commit r14-11079-g2d9dbaf06e4cd83125781d1eb760f5404da3d175 Author: Jerry DeLisle

[Bug target/117970] [15 regression] RISC-V: xtreme-header failed to read compiled module: Bad file data

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117970 --- Comment #5 from Edwin Lu --- this testcase also appears to be flakey for these three targets: - rv32imac-ilp32d - rv64imac-lp64d - rv64imc_zicsr_zifencei-lp64d https://github.com/patrick-rivos/gcc-postcommit-ci/issues/2237 https://github.co

[Bug c++/96977] mangling ‘typeof’ or use ‘decltype’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96977 --- Comment #2 from Swudu Susuwu <2002luvabbaluvu at gmail dot com> --- If the diff won't load, here is te regular expression which was used to fix this; `%s/typeof \(.*\)/decltype(\1)/`. The general form is `%s/typeof \(.*<.*>\)/decltype(\1)/`

[Bug c++/96977] mangling ‘typeof’ or use ‘decltype’

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96977 Swudu Susuwu <2002luvabbaluvu at gmail dot com> changed: What|Removed |Added CC||2002luva

[Bug rtl-optimization/110791] [12/13/14/15 Regression] arm: Wrong code with -Os -march=armv8.1-m.main (maybe fmodulo-sched related)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110791 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug tree-optimization/115869] [13/14/15 Regression] Wrong constant evaluation with vector of struct due to loop interchange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115869 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/115869] [13/14/15 Regression] Wrong constant evaluation with vector of struct due to loop interchange

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115869 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5

[Bug preprocessor/117977] [12/13/14/15 Regression] duplicated warnings output for _Pragma GCC warning with macros

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117977 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/117979] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE on x86_64-linux-gnu: in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.cc:1742 at -Os and above and returns twice since r12-5301

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117979 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14/15 Regression]

[Bug c++/117614] [14 Regression] Cannot change active member of anonymous union in constant expression since r14-4771-g1d260ab0e39ea6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117614 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[14/15 Regression] Cannot |[14 Regression] Cannot

[Bug c++/117614] [14/15 Regression] Cannot change active member of anonymous union in constant expression since r14-4771-g1d260ab0e39ea6

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117614 --- Comment #4 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:337815c8bbd0fb5034223ad0e7899d1493e958a2 commit r15-6119-g337815c8bbd0fb5034223ad0e7899d1493e958a2 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: W

[Bug c++/116416] Missing optimization: compile time evaluation of prvalue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- struct S { int a; }; struct T { struct S b; int c; struct S d; }; struct U { struct T e; int f; struct T g; }; void f0 (struct U *); void f1 (void) { struct U u = { { {}, 1, {} }, 2, { {}, 3, {} } }; f

[Bug c++/116416] Missing optimization: compile time evaluation of prvalue

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116416 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 59834 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59834&action=edit gcc15-pr116416-opt.patch I've tried to implement a simple optimization (on top of the PR118002 fix), where we

[Bug c++/118002] Padding bits still not cleared in empty classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118002 --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 59833 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=59833&action=edit gcc15-pr118002.patch Untested fix.

[Bug c++/118002] New: Padding bits still not cleared in empty classes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118002 Bug ID: 118002 Summary: Padding bits still not cleared in empty classes Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug target/118001] [avr] Support __flashx as 24-bit named address space

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118001 Georg-Johann Lay changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||addr-space Severity|normal

[Bug target/118001] New: [avr] Support __flashx as 24-bit named address space

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118001 Bug ID: 118001 Summary: [avr] Support __flashx as 24-bit named address space Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compon

[Bug c++/117993] [15 regression] this->x is being rejected in a nested template class with a base of class of the outer templated class since r15-2117

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117993 --- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > > > I suspect for some reason we think the current instantiation d

[Bug driver/117992] gcc -flto -fharden leads to warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117992 --- Comment #11 from Icenowy Zheng --- Checked gcc -v, there's really enable-default-pie, and in the output of "gcc main.c -fhardened -O2 -flto -v", the COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS lists really include "-pie". Thus the explanation by Ruoyao looks reaso

[Bug target/118000] New: [avr] memcpy from __flash1 clobbers RAMPZ on EBI devices

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118000 Bug ID: 118000 Summary: [avr] memcpy from __flash1 clobbers RAMPZ on EBI devices Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug c++/117993] [15 regression] this->x is being rejected in a nested template class with a base of class of the outer templated class since r15-2117

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117993 --- Comment #7 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #6) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > > > I suspect for some reason we think the current instantiation d

[Bug c++/117993] [15 regression] this->x is being rejected in a nested template class with a base of class of the outer templated class since r15-2117

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117993 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #6

[Bug c++/95349] Using std::launder(p) produces unexpected behavior where (p) produces expected behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95349 --- Comment #55 from Jonathan Wakely --- https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue4064 clarifies that launder is unnecessary.

[Bug other/116253] RFE: support for nested diagnostics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116253 --- Comment #13 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by David Malcolm : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7435d1dbae8ae1db239228811b1e1f2452674704 commit r15-6117-g7435d1dbae8ae1db239228811b1e1f2452674704 Author: David Malcolm Date:

[Bug driver/117992] gcc -flto -fharden leads to warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117992 --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > Without -flto, there's no explicit -fpie flag Sorry I mean -pie, not -fpie.

[Bug driver/117992] gcc -flto -fharden leads to warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117992 --- Comment #9 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Icenowy Zheng from comment #7) > Does -flto imply -pie ? I cannot understand the discussion here now... No, but if your GCC is configured --with-default-pie (it's enabled by almost all Linux distro

  1   2   >