[Bug c++/118271] New: GCC complains on valid friend declaration of overloaded type conversion operator in a derived class

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118271 Bug ID: 118271 Summary: GCC complains on valid friend declaration of overloaded type conversion operator in a derived class Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug fortran/117643] F_C_STRING from F23 is missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117643 Jerry DeLisle changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/117997] [15 regression] libgo regressions on aarch64 after g:4d2b9202fe94c54e63fb07d48293a78da3d82532

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117997 --- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I'm highly confident the problem is in the libgo DSO and not in the testcode itself (I can run the test binary with the system libgo DSO and it works). Given the error message I would expect the problem is

[Bug middle-end/116750] New documentation section about how on produce reproducible objects

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116750 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --

[Bug tree-optimization/117997] [15 regression] libgo regressions on aarch64 after g:4d2b9202fe94c54e63fb07d48293a78da3d82532

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117997 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 LIU Hao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com --- Comment #8 from L

[Bug rtl-optimization/107455] Suboptimal codegen for some branch-on-zero cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107455 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug target/118270] [15 Regression] Many AVX10.2 test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118270 --- Comment #1 from Haochen Jiang --- It is caused by binutils and gcc mnemonics currently misaligned. The mnemonics got some changes after GCC upstreamed. Binutils is using some new mnemonics, while GCC does not. Since there would be more comi

[Bug rtl-optimization/111782] [12/13/14 Regression] Extra move with arguments and returns and still using the argument for the last statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111782 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] Extra

[Bug middle-end/111843] [meta-bug] wrong-code due to -fstack-reuse=/clobbers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111843 Bug 111843 depends on bug 111839, which changed state. Bug 111839 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-2097-g9f34b780b0 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111839 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/111839] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-2097-g9f34b780b0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111839 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Resolut

[Bug ipa/115767] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC loses track of value on aarch64 with -O2 since r11-3308-gd119f34c952f87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #60030|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug ipa/115767] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC loses track of value on aarch64 with -O2 since r11-3308-gd119f34c952f87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767 --- Comment #19 from Andrew Pinski --- So far in my reduced testcase: This fails: auto find() { return this->template functor()( this->base().find(0)); } While this works: auto find() { return this->base().find(0); } Which is why I said

[Bug c++/115008] ICE with modules on amd64-freebsd*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115008 --- Comment #11 from Gerald Pfeifer --- (In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #8) > Thank you, Nathaniel! > > Comparing a build from yesterday including my hack from comment #4 > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-December

[Bug target/105010] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC 12 after 20220227 fails to build on powerpc64-freebsd with Error: invalid mfcr mask

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105010 --- Comment #27 from Gerald Pfeifer --- Please ignore comment #26; wrong report.

[Bug ipa/115767] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC loses track of value on aarch64 with -O2 since r11-3308-gd119f34c952f87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767 --- Comment #18 from Andrew Pinski --- There might be a strict aliasing violation dealing with iterators. I am not 100% yet though.

[Bug target/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- Please upload your auto-host.h.

[Bug target/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu --- I can't reproduce it with x86-64 gcc configured with --enable-checking=release --enable-cet --with-demangler-in-ld --prefix=/usr/gcc-15.0.0-x32 --with-local-prefix=/usr/local --enable-gnu-indirect-function --enab

[Bug c++/102397] Documentation of attribute syntax does not discuss C++11 / C23 attribute syntax

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102397 --- Comment #4 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- PR108796 seems to be more of a "GCC is broken because it doesn't do what I want" issue, than specifically a documentation issue. The two issues I'm thinking are most relevant to a rewrite are PR8

[Bug target/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- I am using binutils master branch with commit 2b001c799977a97304311df238fe33daa9b8fa7f Author: GDB Administrator Date: Mon Dec 30 00:00:19 2024 + Automatic date update in version.in

[Bug fortran/106692] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Cray pointer comparison wrongly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692 --- Comment #16 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #15) > I have tried replacing TREE_VOLATILE by TREE_STATIC, i.e. > > + // Hack: prevent optimization of comparison of Cray pointers > (PR106692) > + if

[Bug target/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- How can I reproduce it with x86-64 gcc? I tried x86-64 gcc configured with --disable-bootstrap --enable-checking=release --enable-cet --with-demangler-in-ld --prefix=/usr/gcc-15.0.0-x86-64 --with-local-prefix=/us

[Bug ipa/115767] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC loses track of value on aarch64 with -O2 since r11-3308-gd119f34c952f87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #60029|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug target/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/118270] New: [15 Regression] Many AVX10.2 test failures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118270 Bug ID: 118270 Summary: [15 Regression] Many AVX10.2 test failures Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: targe

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org --- Commen

[Bug fortran/106692] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Cray pointer comparison wrongly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692 anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||6.4.1 CC|

[Bug other/44574] [meta-bug] Avoid use of atoi

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44574 --- Comment #19 from Heiko Eißfeldt --- (In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #0) > The atoi function has undefined behavior if its argument is outside > the range of int. Thus, GCC should not use it for any user input that > might be outsid

[Bug ipa/98000] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE verify_cgraph_node failed since r10-7306-g72b3bc895f023bf4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/110389] [12 Regression] wrong code at -Os and -O2 with "-fno-tree-ch -fno-expensive-optimizations -fno-ivopts -fno-tree-loop-ivcanon" on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110389 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12 Regression] wrong code

[Bug tree-optimization/108366] [12 Regression] Spurious stringop overflow, possibly alias-related since r12-145-gd1d01a66012a93cc

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108366 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12 Regression] Spurious

[Bug target/108803] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code for 128bit rotate on aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu with -Og

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108803 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression] wrong

[Bug c/88860] Clarify gcc online manual 6.38 Attribute Syntax

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88860 sandra at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED CC|

[Bug middle-end/107991] [12/13/14 Regression] Extra mov instructions with ternary on x86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107991 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Summ

[Bug tree-optimization/106297] [12/13/14 Regression] stringop-overflow misbehaviour on atomic since r12-4725-g88b504b7a8c5affb

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106297 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/118198] tail merge/cross jump should not merge abort

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118198 ak at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|tail merge should not merge |tail merge/cross jump

[Bug tree-optimization/105100] [12 Regression] Strange warning when modifying structures "writing 1 byte into a region of size 0" when compile with -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105100 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12 Regression] Strange

[Bug target/105136] [12/13/14 regression] Missed optimization regression with 32-bit adds and shifts

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105136 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 regression]|[12/13/14 regression]

[Bug c++/102397] Documentation of attribute syntax does not discuss C++11 / C23 attribute syntax

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102397 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/102397] Documentation of attribute syntax does not discuss C++11 / C23 attribute syntax

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102397 --- Comment #2 from sandra at gcc dot gnu.org --- C23 is now the default C version, so this issue is unblocked. I'm anticipating some substantial rewrites/reorganization of all the attribute documentation to address this and other issues at

[Bug rtl-optimization/105383] [12/13 Regression] ICE: in change_insns, at rtl-ssa/changes.cc:674 with -Os -m32 since r11-6188-g0b76990a9d75d97b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105383 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Summ

[Bug target/105546] [12/13 Regression] ifconversion introduces many compares with loads

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105546 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Summ

[Bug tree-optimization/105918] [12 Regression] Spurious Warray-bounds in std::to_chars since r12-2132-ga110855667782dac

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105918 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12 Regression] Spurious

[Bug middle-end/104787] [12/13/14/15 Regression] False positive -Wreturn-type since r12-5638-ga3e75c1491cd2d50

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104787 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug middle-end/104986] [12 Regression] bogus writing 1 byte into a region of size 0 with -fwrapv and -O2 -fpeel-loops since r12-4698-gf6d012338bf87f42

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104986 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Summ

[Bug tree-optimization/118194] [12/13/14/15 regression] spurious warning with -Wmaybe-uninitialized with mlock since r11-959-gb825a22890740f

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118194 --- Comment #4 from Sam James --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #1) > I suppose Glibc should add __attribute__((access(1, none))) for mlock. commit 013106ae677af9836614ace1a01d25b63fa555a7 (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Auth

[Bug tree-optimization/103724] [12/13 Regression] invalid warning: iteration 7 invokes undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103724 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Summ

[Bug rtl-optimization/103829] [12/13/14 Regression] missing shrink wrapping for simple/obvious code

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103829 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2025-01-01 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug tree-optimization/102329] [12/13/14/15 Regression] pointer "maybe uninitialized" right after assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102329 --- Comment #14 from Sam James --- (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #7) > We need to suppress this warning for pthread_setspecific in glibc because it > is incorrect there. There is currently no good way to implement that > suppression u

[Bug middle-end/24639] [meta-bug] bug to track all Wuninitialized issues

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24639 Bug 24639 depends on bug 102329, which changed state. Bug 102329 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] pointer "maybe uninitialized" right after assignment https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102329 What|Removed

[Bug tree-optimization/102329] [12/13/14/15 Regression] pointer "maybe uninitialized" right after assignment

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102329 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Resolut

[Bug target/100378] [12/13/14/15 Regression] arm64: lsl + asr used instead of sxth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100378 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug ipa/115767] [12/13/14/15 regression] GCC loses track of value on aarch64 with -O2 since r11-3308-gd119f34c952f87

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115767 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #60025|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug c/118269] New: ice in vect_create_epilog_for_reduction, at tree-vect-loop.cc:6901

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118269 Bug ID: 118269 Summary: ice in vect_create_epilog_for_reduction, at tree-vect-loop.cc:6901 Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 --- Comment #6 from Sam James --- Thanks, I did try looking and somehow missed that one.

[Bug target/53929] [meta-bug] -masm=intel with global symbol

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53929 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sjames at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4

[Bug target/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |15.0 Component|rtl-optimizatio

[Bug tree-optimization/92005] [12/13/14/15 Regression] switch code generation regression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92005 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/88443] [meta-bug] bogus/missing -Wstringop-overflow warnings

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88443 Bug 88443 depends on bug 92718, which changed state. Bug 92718 Summary: [12/13/14/15 Regression] Bogus Wstringop-overflow in __builtin_memset() of an element of array of size 1 of struct https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718

[Bug middle-end/92718] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Bogus Wstringop-overflow in __builtin_memset() of an element of array of size 1 of struct

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92718 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug rtl-optimization/95123] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Wrong code w/ -O2 -fselective-scheduling2 -funroll-loops --param early-inlining-insns=5 --param loop-invariant-max-bbs-in-loop=3 --param max-jump-

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95123 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P4 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/95140] [12/13 Regression] bogus -Wstringop-overflow for a loop unrolled past the end of an array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95140 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13 Regression] bogus

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 --- Comment #3 from Sam James --- ``` void byte() {} ```

[Bug target/97366] [12/13/14 Regression] Redundant load with SSE/AVX vector intrinsics

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97366 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug ipa/98000] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE verify_cgraph_node failed since r10-7306-g72b3bc895f023bf4

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98000 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Stat

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- Created attachment 60028 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60028&action=edit execute.s.xz

[Bug target/118268] bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 --- Comment #1 from Sam James --- Created attachment 60027 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60027&action=edit execute.i.xz

[Bug target/118268] New: bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118268 Bug ID: 118268 Summary: bc-1.07.1 fails to build with -masm=intel Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: target

[Bug c++/98459] [12/13/14/15 Regression] ICE in linemap_position_for_line_and_column, at libcpp/line-map.c:923 since r6-6901-g876217ae71cf0b34

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98459 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/99078] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Optimizer moves struct initialization into loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99078 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at gcc dot gnu.org Stat

[Bug tree-optimization/99918] [12/13/14 Regression] suboptimal code for bool bitfield tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99918 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[12/13/14/15 Regression]|[12/13/14 Regression]

[Bug tree-optimization/118171] [15 Regression] during GIMPLE pass: pre ICE: verify_gimple failed: non-top-level 'realpart_expr' at -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118171 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- The issue is we're doing tree t = build3 (BIT_FIELD_REF, currop->type, genop0, op1, op2); REF_REVERSE_STORAGE_ORDER (t) = currop->reverse; return fold (t); and while we correctly r

[Bug tree-optimization/118267] New: Suboptimal code for bool bitfield tests

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118267 Bug ID: 118267 Summary: Suboptimal code for bool bitfield tests Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-

[Bug c++/78216] Segfault when dealing with a parameter pack of member functions pointers

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78216 --- Comment #6 from Adam Ryan --- After investigating this further I have found that the issue I encountered had a different root cause and I've created a new PR for it here https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118265.

[Bug c++/118265] Failure in resolving non-type template parameters with nested parameter pack of form ...B>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118265 --- Comment #2 from Sam James --- https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/173574242188.7.15941998856003691840.550550...@ajryansolutions.co.uk/

[Bug c++/118265] Failure in resolving non-type template parameters with nested parameter pack of form ...B>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118265 --- Comment #1 from Adam Ryan --- Created attachment 60026 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=60026&action=edit Patch that has been submitted for review. I've submitted a patch for review.

[Bug ipa/115135] [12/13/14/15 regression] [C++] GCC produces wrong code at certain inlining levels on Aarch64 with -fno-exceptions, related to lambdas and variants since r12-5113-gd70ef65692fced

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115135 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection --- Comment #15 from Sam Ja

[Bug target/118174] [15 Regression] AArch64: Miscompilation at -O3 since r15-5943-gdc0dea98c96e02

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118174 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/118174] [15 Regression] AArch64: Miscompilation at -O3 since r15-5943-gdc0dea98c96e02

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118174 --- Comment #6 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8b559626025d2466c2780af6b62560dda468647 commit r15-6484-gf8b559626025d2466c2780af6b62560dda468647 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/117971] SRA improvements for g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr78687.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117971 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug rtl-optimization/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 --- Comment #2 from Matthias Klose --- also seen with the host being arm64 or ppc64el.

[Bug rtl-optimization/118266] [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118266 --- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose --- Configured with: -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu 15-20250101-0ubuntu1' --with-bugurl='file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-15/README.Bugs' --enable-languages=c,ada,c++,go,

[Bug rtl-optimization/118266] New: [15 Regression] ICE in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.cc:2591

Priority: P3 Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- seen with trunk 20250101 building a x86_64-linux-gnux32 cross compiler on x86_64-linux-gnu, in libgfortran. using -O1

[Bug c++/118265] New: Failure in resolving non-type template parameters with nested parameter pack of form ...B>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118265 Bug ID: 118265 Summary: Failure in resolving non-type template parameters with nested parameter pack of form ...B> Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status:

[Bug fortran/106692] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Cray pointer comparison wrongly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692 --- Comment #14 from Paul Thomas --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #12) > This very local, hackish patch marks the Cray pointers as volatile only > for comparisons, fixes the testcase and does not regress with the analyzer > testcases. Not t

[Bug c++/118264] New: GCC allows declaring constexpr template constructor in derived type with virtual base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118264 Bug ID: 118264 Summary: GCC allows declaring constexpr template constructor in derived type with virtual base Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Se

[Bug c++/118263] Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 Richard Yao changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|87403 | --- Comment #5 from Richard Yao --- (In

[Bug c++/118263] Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement

[Bug fortran/106692] [12/13/14/15 Regression] Cray pointer comparison wrongly optimized away

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106692 --- Comment #13 from Tobias Burnus --- > What do others think? I am a bit unsure. Cray pointers are weird and it is not quite clear how they are used in real world code. Your modification causes a missed optimization for code like: var = N

[Bug c++/118263] Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 --- Comment #4 from Richard Yao --- Andrew Pinski, I had been unaware of that. Thanks for mentioning it. I filed a bug against LLVM too: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/121427

[Bug c++/118263] Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- Note some extern "C" functions in glibc support throwing from the call back. The same can be true from noexcept functions. Where they catch all exceptions from the call back function. So this is more com

[Bug c++/118263] Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 --- Comment #2 from Richard Yao --- To be clear, QueueUserAPC(), WaitForSingleObjectEx() and select() on Windows are all C ABI functions according to the WINE sources. The pointer is technically going to QueueUserAPC(), although it is interrupti

[Bug c++/118263] Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Note you could mark the function type as noexcept in some levels of c++.

[Bug c++/118263] New: Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is undefined behavior

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118263 Bug ID: 118263 Summary: Compiler should issue a warning when passing function pointers not marked noexcept to functions where throwing an exception in a callback function is