[Bug c/118061] New: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in tagged_types_tu_compatible_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1946

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118061 Bug ID: 118061 Summary: ICE: tree check: expected class 'type', have 'exceptional' (error_mark) in tagged_types_tu_compatible_p, at c/c-typeck.cc:1946 Product: gcc

[Bug c/117694] New: ICE: tree_class_check_failed(tree_node const*, tree_code_class, char const*, int, char const*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117694 Bug ID: 117694 Summary: ICE: tree_class_check_failed(tree_node const*, tree_code_class, char const*, int, char const*) Product: gcc Version: 15.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug rtl-optimization/117354] New: [14] ICE: in extract_bit_field_1, at expmed.cc:1838

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117354 Bug ID: 117354 Summary: [14] ICE: in extract_bit_field_1, at expmed.cc:1838 Product: gcc Version: 14.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/117213] New: ICE: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117213 Bug ID: 117213 Summary: ICE: maximum number of generated reload insns per insn achieved (90) Product: gcc Version: 13.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/117212] ICE: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.cc:3059

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117212 --- Comment #1 from Bi6c --- We have found crashes on gcc-11.5.0, gcc-12.4.0, and gcc-13.3.0.

[Bug c/117212] New: ICE: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.cc:3059

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=117212 Bug ID: 117212 Summary: ICE: in gimplify_var_or_parm_decl, at gimplify.cc:3059 Product: gcc Version: 12.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug sanitizer/116031] New: signed integer overflow check at optimization level -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116031 Bug ID: 116031 Summary: signed integer overflow check at optimization level -O3 Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug sanitizer/115793] signed integer overflow check missing at optimization levels -O2, -O3, and -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115793 --- Comment #5 from Bi6c --- gcc-trunk also not reporting signed integer overflow at -O2, -O3, and -Os (https://godbolt.org/z/8xnq1bo7s).

[Bug sanitizer/115793] signed integer overflow check missing at optimization levels -O2, -O3, and -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115793 --- Comment #3 from Bi6c --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #2) > Hmm I remember there's an opening bug report for this but I cannot find it... Is this considered a duplicated bug?

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #10 from Bi6c --- Sorry I pasted the wrong link. It should be this one https://godbolt.org/z/GM13fhWbb

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #9 from Bi6c --- https://godbolt.org/ Yes, I also tried to use the compiler explorer. When I compiled with gcc-12.3.0, I got the results below. -O0: c[7][4].a: 2 -O2: c[7][4].a: 3

[Bug sanitizer/115972] New: [10/11 Regression] Misaligned address error check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115972 Bug ID: 115972 Summary: [10/11 Regression] Misaligned address error check missing Product: gcc Version: 11.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug sanitizer/115971] New: [12 Regression]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115971 Bug ID: 115971 Summary: [12 Regression] Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer Assignee:

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #7 from Bi6c --- (In reply to Sam James from comment #6) > (In reply to Bi6c from comment #4) > > Created attachment 58665 [details] > > preprocessed file w/o csmith.h dependency > > > > Preprocessed file w/o csmith.h dependency >

[Bug sanitizer/115793] signed integer overflow check missing at optimization levels -O2, -O3, and -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115793 --- Comment #1 from Bi6c --- When compiling with gcc-13.2.0 at -O0, -O1, -O2, -O3, and -Os, UBSAN reported signed integer overflow error. We wonder if the code was optimized out because of optimization level -O2, -O3, and -Os in gcc-14.

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #5 from Bi6c --- The discrepancy also appeared when compiling with optimization level -Os

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #4 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58665 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58665&action=edit preprocessed file w/o csmith.h dependency Preprocessed file w/o csmith.h dependency

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #3 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58664 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58664&action=edit reduced testcase I reduced the testcase and removed the csmith dependency.

[Bug sanitizer/115899] [14 Regression] Misaligned address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115899 --- Comment #1 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58643 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58643&action=edit testcase

[Bug sanitizer/115899] [14 Regression] Misaligned address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115899 --- Comment #2 from Bi6c --- OS: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS We found that GCC failed to detect a signed integer overflow error in gcc-14.1.0 at optimization level 0. $ ~/compiler-builds/gcc-13.2.0_build/bin/gcc -fsanitize=undefined -g -lgcc_s -w -O0 te

[Bug sanitizer/115899] New: [14 Regression] Misaligned address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115899 Bug ID: 115899 Summary: [14 Regression] Misaligned address check missing Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug sanitizer/115837] New: ASAN FPE on unknown address report missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115837 Bug ID: 115837 Summary: ASAN FPE on unknown address report missing Product: gcc Version: 11.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: san

[Bug sanitizer/115812] New: [12/13 Regression] FPE on unknown address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115812 Bug ID: 115812 Summary: [12/13 Regression] FPE on unknown address check missing Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug sanitizer/115793] New: signed integer overflow check missing at optimization levels -O2, -O3, and -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115793 Bug ID: 115793 Summary: signed integer overflow check missing at optimization levels -O2, -O3, and -Os Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug sanitizer/115791] New: division by zero check missing at optimization levels -O2 and -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115791 Bug ID: 115791 Summary: division by zero check missing at optimization levels -O2 and -O3 Product: gcc Version: 10.5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 --- Comment #2 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58582 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58582&action=edit preprocessed source file

[Bug tree-optimization/115766] New: [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115766 Bug ID: 115766 Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3 Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/115765] New: [13 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115765 Bug ID: 115765 Summary: [13 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Com

[Bug sanitizer/115762] New: [14 Regression] ASAN FPE on unknown address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115762 Bug ID: 115762 Summary: [14 Regression] ASAN FPE on unknown address check missing Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug sanitizer/115760] New: FPE on unknown address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115760 Bug ID: 115760 Summary: FPE on unknown address check missing Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: sanitizer

[Bug sanitizer/115625] New: [10/11/13 Regression] misaligned address check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115625 Bug ID: 115625 Summary: [10/11/13 Regression] misaligned address check missing Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Co

[Bug sanitizer/115323] [10/11/12 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing at -O0, -O2, -O3, -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115323 Bi6c changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #58328|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug sanitizer/115323] [10/11/12 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing at -O0, -O2, -O3, -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115323 --- Comment #1 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58329 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58329&action=edit preprocessed file

[Bug sanitizer/115323] New: [10/11/12 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing at -O0, -O2, -O3, -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115323 Bug ID: 115323 Summary: [10/11/12 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing at -O0, -O2, -O3, -Os Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Seve

[Bug sanitizer/115127] [12/13/14/15 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_ctz() check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127 --- Comment #4 from Bi6c --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Can you attach the preprocessed source? Yes. I attached the preprocessed source file.

[Bug sanitizer/115273] [12 Regression] passing zero to ctz() check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115273 --- Comment #1 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58306 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58306&action=edit preprocessed file

[Bug sanitizer/115273] New: [12 Regression] passing zero to ctz() check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115273 Bug ID: 115273 Summary: [12 Regression] passing zero to ctz() check missing Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug tree-optimization/115225] New: [11/12/13/14 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing with optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115225 Bug ID: 115225 Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing with optimization Product: gcc Version: 11.4.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sever

[Bug sanitizer/115156] New: [14 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_clzl() check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115156 Bug ID: 115156 Summary: [14 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_clzl() check missing Product: gcc Version: 14.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/115155] New: [11/12 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115155 Bug ID: 115155 Summary: [11/12 Regression] signed integer overflow check missing Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug tree-optimization/115154] New: [13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3, -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115154 Bug ID: 115154 Summary: [13/14 Regression] wrong code at optimization levels -O2, -O3, -Os Product: gcc Version: 13.2.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug sanitizer/115127] [12/13/14/15 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_ctz() check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127 --- Comment #3 from Bi6c --- Created attachment 58237 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=58237&action=edit preprocessed source file

[Bug sanitizer/115127] New: [12/13/14 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_ctz() check missing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115127 Bug ID: 115127 Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] passing zero to __builtin_ctz() check missing Product: gcc Version: 12.3.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal