[Bug tree-optimization/116272] New: [13/14/15 Regression] Wrong code at -O2/3/s on aarch64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116272 Bug ID: 116272 Summary: [13/14/15 Regression] Wrong code at -O2/3/s on aarch64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c/113232] New: wrong code at -fpack-struct on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113232 Bug ID: 113232 Summary: wrong code at -fpack-struct on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Componen

[Bug c/112826] gcc rejects the valid code and reports undefined reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112826 --- Comment #4 from Junwei Zeng --- Thank you for your explanation.

[Bug c/112826] New: gcc rejects the valid code and reports undefined reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112826 Bug ID: 112826 Summary: gcc rejects the valid code and reports undefined reference Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pr

[Bug middle-end/112344] [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344 --- Comment #3 from Junwei Zeng --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Corrected testcase: > ``` > int printf(const char *, ...); > void a() { > long b = 2036854775807; > char c = 3; > short d; > int e = -2147483648, f = 0; >

[Bug middle-end/112344] New: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112344 Bug ID: 112344 Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug middle-end/112305] New: [13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3/s on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112305 Bug ID: 112305 Summary: [13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3/s on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/111290] New: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111290 Bug ID: 111290 Summary: [11/12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/111151] New: [12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51 Bug ID: 51 Summary: [12/13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/111007] New: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111007 Bug ID: 111007 Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O0 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug middle-end/110761] New: No warning for an uninitialized variable when used within its own initialization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110761 Bug ID: 110761 Summary: No warning for an uninitialized variable when used within its own initialization Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit

[Bug tree-optimization/110569] New: [14 Regression] Different results among -O0, -O1 and -Os

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110569 Bug ID: 110569 Summary: [14 Regression] Different results among -O0, -O1 and -Os Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug tree-optimization/110532] New: [14 Regression] Different results between -O0 and -O1

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110532 Bug ID: 110532 Summary: [14 Regression] Different results between -O0 and -O1 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo

[Bug sanitizer/110527] New: [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ASan is missing array out-of-bounds check

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110527 Bug ID: 110527 Summary: [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] ASan is missing array out-of-bounds check Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/110494] New: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110494 Bug ID: 110494 Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O3 on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Prio

[Bug tree-optimization/110475] New: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2/3/s on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110475 Bug ID: 110475 Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O2/3/s on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/110446] New: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3/s on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110446 Bug ID: 110446 Summary: [14 Regression] Wrong code at -O1/2/3/s on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/110410] [14 Regression] Different results between -O0 and -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110410 --- Comment #3 from Jw Zeng --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2) > phi-opt again? Link to the Compiler Explorer:https://godbolt.org/z/EeEqMGnWo I reduced the code again, I hope it helps. The reduced code is as follows: #include

[Bug tree-optimization/110410] [14 Regression] Different results between -O0 and -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110410 --- Comment #1 from Jw Zeng --- Link to the Compiler Explorer: https://godbolt.org/z/d5v5scnP4

[Bug tree-optimization/110410] New: [14 Regression] Different results between -O0 and -O2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110410 Bug ID: 110410 Summary: [14 Regression] Different results between -O0 and -O2 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Compo