[Bug c++/105734] [12/13 Regression]: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'" for explicit destructor inside a template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1) > More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the testcase *here* not only as a URL.

[Bug tree-optimization/105735] New: GCC failed to reduce &= loop_inv in loop.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735 Bug ID: 105735 Summary: GCC failed to reduce &= loop_inv in loop. Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-o

[Bug c++/105734] [12/13 Regression]: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'" for explicit destructor inside a template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/105736] New: [13 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736 Bug ID: 105736 Summary: [13 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818 Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRME

[Bug tree-optimization/105735] GCC failed to reduce &= loop_inv in loop.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug tree-optimization/101991] bit_and or bit_ior with an invariant inside loop is not pulled out of the loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101991 --- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 105735 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug target/47769] [missed optimization] use of btr (bit test and reset)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47769 Bug 47769 depends on bug 105735, which changed state. Bug 105735 Summary: GCC failed to reduce &= loop_inv in loop. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105735 What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/105736] [13 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-05-26 Target Milestone|---

[Bug c++/105737] New: Incorrect evaluation order in new expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737 Bug ID: 105737 Summary: Incorrect evaluation order in new expression Product: gcc Version: 11.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug target/105731] superfluous second operation before conditional branch -O2 -mcpu=cortex-m0plus

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105731 --- Comment #5 from Richard Earnshaw --- The thumb1 rtx-costing function needs a complete rewrite along the lines and style of the Thumb2 and Arm costing routines. Another thing for my copious free time (TM).

[Bug lto/105727] __builtin_constant_p expansion in LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727 --- Comment #13 from Martin Liška --- > To me it looked like a protection that size is not going to be large > (or perhaps author wants to add extra special cases as they are needed) No, see c#10.

[Bug c++/105737] Incorrect evaluation order in new expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|needs-bisection | Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug lto/105727] __builtin_constant_p expansion in LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727 --- Comment #14 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13) > > To me it looked like a protection that size is not going to be large > > (or perhaps author wants to add extra special cases as they are needed) > > No, see c

[Bug other/105729] False positive UBsan "reference binding to null pointer of type" when evaluating array indexing which throws exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2022-05-26 Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug libstdc++/105730] Issue with commit - Allow std::condition_variable waits to be cancelled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105730 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug libstdc++/105730] Issue with commit - Allow std::condition_variable waits to be cancelled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105730 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug c++/105737] [10/11 only] Incorrect evaluation order in new expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Incorrect evaluation order |[10/11 only] Incorrect

[Bug c/105738] New: asan error during bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738 Bug ID: 105738 Summary: asan error during bootstrap Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c Assignee

[Bug target/105738] asan error during bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||build, wrong-code Component|c

[Bug tree-optimization/105736] [12 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736 Siddhesh Poyarekar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassi

[Bug target/102218] 128-bit atomic compare and exchange does not honor memory model on AArch64 and Arm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102218 Tamar Christina changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c++/53281] poor error message for calling a non-const method from a const object

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53281 --- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 53035 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53035&action=edit Incomplete patch

[Bug tree-optimization/105739] New: [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel update.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739 Bug ID: 105739 Summary: [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel update.c Product: gcc Version: 10.3.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug tree-optimization/105739] [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel update.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org Target Mil

[Bug tree-optimization/105739] [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel update.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 53036 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53036&action=edit update.i.xz

[Bug tree-optimization/105740] New: missed optimization switch transformation for conditions with duplicate conditions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105740 Bug ID: 105740 Summary: missed optimization switch transformation for conditions with duplicate conditions Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Sev

[Bug tree-optimization/105739] [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel update.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- The call is added at: #0 gimple_set_code (g=, code=GIMPLE_CALL) at ../../gcc/gimple.c:108 #1 0x00bceae1 in gimple_alloc (code=GIMPLE_CALL, num_ops=7) at ../../gcc/gimple.c:140 #2 0x00bd189

[Bug c++/105737] [10/11 only] Incorrect evaluation order in new expression

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105737 --- Comment #3 from m.cencora at gmail dot com --- FWIW Ordered evaluation of elements in braced-init-list exists since C++11 (it was not a part of P0145).

[Bug preprocessor/105732] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] internal compiler error: unspellable token PADDING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #9

[Bug c++/96363] bogus error with multiple constrained partial specialization forward declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Patrick Palka : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97dc78d705a90c1ae83c78a7f2e24942cc3a6257 commit r13-779-g97dc78d705a90c1ae83c78a7f2e24942cc3a6257 Author: Patrick Palka Date: Thu

[Bug c++/96363] bogus error with multiple constrained partial specialization forward declarations

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96363 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.2 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Palka

[Bug lto/105727] __builtin_constant_p expansion in LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727 --- Comment #15 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- > No, see c#10. I know it will work if BUILD_BUG call is removed. However the only reason I can see why original author put it there is that he/she wanted to write special case checkers for

[Bug tree-optimization/105739] [9/10 Regression] Miscompilation of Linux kernel update.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105739 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug lto/105727] __builtin_constant_p expansion in LTO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105727 --- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek --- That may be true, but I think only the 1/2/4/8/16 sizes are interesting to handle with special code. And as the function is provably called by a function which can have any size and through LTO can get a co

[Bug preprocessor/105732] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] internal compiler error: unspellable token PADDING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/105741] New: Wrong preprocessor parameter substitution with ##__VA_ARGS__.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741 Bug ID: 105741 Summary: Wrong preprocessor parameter substitution with ##__VA_ARGS__. Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/105741] Wrong preprocessor parameter substitution with ##__VA_ARGS__.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741 --- Comment #1 from JFK --- Same problem with 10.2.0

[Bug c++/105741] Wrong preprocessor parameter substitution with ##__VA_ARGS__.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741 --- Comment #3 from JFK --- Any idea about how to work around this without the use of VA_OPT ?

[Bug c++/105741] Wrong preprocessor parameter substitution with ##__VA_ARGS__.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105741 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2

[Bug c++/105742] New: accepts-invalid non-dependent call to non-static member function from unrelated class in presence of dependent base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105742 Bug ID: 105742 Summary: accepts-invalid non-dependent call to non-static member function from unrelated class in presence of dependent base Product: gcc Version:

[Bug c++/105742] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] accepts-invalid non-dependent call to non-static member function from unrelated class in presence of dependent base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105742 Patrick Palka changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail||10.3.0, 11.2.0, 12.1.0,

[Bug ipa/105639] [12/13 Regression] ICE in propagate_controlled_uses, at ipa-prop.cc:4195 since r12-7936-gf6d65e803623c7ba

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105639 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug other/105729] False positive UBsan "reference binding to null pointer of type" when evaluating array indexing which throws exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- I think the problem is that fold_unary optimizes conversion of (const struct Bar *) ((const struct Foo *) this)->data + (sizetype) range_check (x) to const struct Bar & type into conversion of the lhs of the

[Bug sanitizer/105729] False positive UBsan "reference binding to null pointer of type" when evaluating array indexing which throws exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/105734] [12/13 Regression]: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'" for explicit destructor inside a template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734 --- Comment #9 from Jeremy R. --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Jeremy R. from comment #1) > > More minimal: https://godbolt.org/z/WcGab4W8T > > The https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs very clearly says to provide the testca

[Bug middle-end/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/105743] New: Bogus unused but set lambda warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105743 Bug ID: 105743 Summary: Bogus unused but set lambda warning Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug sanitizer/105729] False positive UBsan "reference binding to null pointer of type" when evaluating array indexing which throws exception

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105729 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 53039 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53039&action=edit gcc13-pr105729.patch Untested fix.

[Bug target/105738] asan error during bootstrap

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105738 --- Comment #2 from David Binderman --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > It could be clang/llvm miscompiling stage 2. Can you try with gcc as the > original compiler? Thanks for the suggestion. I did that, and the problem seems to

[Bug rtl-optimization/105744] New: [11/12/13 Regression] wrong code with -fexpensive-optimizations -flive-range-shrinkage on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu

r13-771-20220526001630-g3dff965cae6-checking-yes-rtl-df-extra-powerpc64le Thread model: posix Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib zstd gcc version 13.0.0 20220526 (experimental) (GCC)

[Bug c++/105743] Bogus unused but set lambda warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105743 Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resoluti

[Bug c++/105571] Spurious "set but not used" on static constexpr local, used in lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105571 Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña changed: What|Removed |Added CC||johelegp at gmail dot com

[Bug c++/105571] Spurious "set but not used" on static constexpr local, used in lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105571 --- Comment #2 from Johel Ernesto Guerrero Peña --- Simplified reproducer from Bug 105743: See https://godbolt.org/z/xq16xac15. ```C++ void f(auto x) { x(0); } void g() { static constexpr auto h = [](...) { }; f([](auto x) { h(x); }); } ``

[Bug libstdc++/105681] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 --- Comment #5 from David Summers --- Yes I can confirm that going back to gcc-11.2.0 - and it works again, that being the only change. It explains how I got the headers, on my first build I used 11.2.0; whilst it was building saw that gcc-12 wa

[Bug libstdc++/105681] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/105681] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4) > possibly the system header diagnostic changes? Yes, the narrowing check here was PR c++/57891 which was fixed for GCC 9. But it was still allowed in system h

[Bug libstdc++/105681] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- And it was indeed something I asked for, see r12-2355 c++: Don't hide narrowing errors in system headers Jonathan pointed me at this issue where constexpr unsigned f() { constexpr int n =

[Bug libstdc++/105681] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 --- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely --- Ah, and I didn't see this when building for msp430 because I used --disable-libstdcxx-pch and that means the build doesn't depend on the header. I can now reproduce the build failure, and the patch in co

[Bug libgomp/105745] New: Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745 Bug ID: 105745 Summary: Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12 Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component:

[Bug c++/105569] [12/13 Regression] -Waddress warns on dynamic_cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105569 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6f56efa94e845db0d5c934ca202295019bf334c1 commit r13-784-g6f56efa94e845db0d5c934ca202295019bf334c1 Author: Marek Polacek Date: Wed

[Bug c++/105569] [12/13 Regression] -Waddress warns on dynamic_cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105569 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/105681] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:367740bf6d3a6627798b3955e5d85efc7549ef50 commit r13-787-g367740bf6d3a6627798b3955e5d85efc7549ef50 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/105681] [12 Regression] libstdc++-v3 fails to build on msp430

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105681 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||11.3.0 Summary|libstdc++-v

[Bug c/90658] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in default_conversion, at c/c-typeck.c:2159

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90658 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9 Regression] ICE in |[9/10/11/12/13 Regression]

[Bug libstdc++/105671] [11/12/13 Regression] Unexplained "undefined reference" error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105671 Joseph S. Myers changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Unexplained "undefined |[11/12/13 Regression]

[Bug c++/105746] New: vector::resize causes Warray-bounds when optimizer uses __builtin_memcpy or __builtin_memmove

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105746 Bug ID: 105746 Summary: vector::resize causes Warray-bounds when optimizer uses __builtin_memcpy or __builtin_memmove Product: gcc Version: 10.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/101836] __builtin_object_size(P->M, 1) where M is an array and the last member of a struct fails

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101836 --- Comment #7 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- I couldn't work on -fstrict-flex-arrays then, sorry. I do have it in my plan for gcc 13, but I'll admit it's not on the very top of my list of things to do this year. If you or anyone else needs a str

[Bug c++/105734] [12/13 Regression]: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'" for explicit destructor inside a template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734 --- Comment #10 from Jeremy R. --- One workaround in the general case is decltype(ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} << expr)) = libassert_decomposer = ns::expression_decomposer(ns::expression_decomposer{} << expr); But this

[Bug c++/105652] [12/13 Regression] ICE: in is_base_type, at dwarf2out.cc:13400 since r12-1937-gc28e1d288ab727de

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105652 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/105745] Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Can you run this under the debugger to see where the crash is? Because there have been almost no changes to the libgomp sources that would effect this.

[Bug tree-optimization/105736] [12 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736 --- Comment #2 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- OK, so the fix is pretty straightforward; error_mark_node escapes through as a return in ADDR_EXPR object size computations. I want to get a reproducer independent of ubsan though so that it's verifiab

[Bug testsuite/105266] new test case gcc.dg/pr105250.c fails with excess errors in r12-8134-g4e892de6774f86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:186fcf8b7a7c17a8a17466bc9149b3ca4ca9dd3e commit r11-10037-g186fcf8b7a7c17a8a17466bc9149b3ca4ca9dd3e Author: Kewen Lin Da

[Bug testsuite/105266] new test case gcc.dg/pr105250.c fails with excess errors in r12-8134-g4e892de6774f86

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|REOPENED

[Bug ipa/105140] [10 Regression] ICE: SIGSEGV in fold_convertible_p with conflicting function redeclaration since r10-5112-gfddcfa5b84bf8a06

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105140 Bug 105140 depends on bug 105266, which changed state. Bug 105266 Summary: new test case gcc.dg/pr105250.c fails with excess errors in r12-8134-g4e892de6774f86 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105266 What|Removed

[Bug ipa/105728] dead store to static var not optimized out

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105728 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |ipa Last reconfirmed|

[Bug preprocessor/105732] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] internal compiler error: unspellable token PADDING

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105732 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1

[Bug c++/105734] [12/13 Regression]: Incorrect "error: invalid use of 'auto'" for explicit destructor inside a template

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105734 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug tree-optimization/105736] [12/13 Regression] ICE in force_gimple_operand_1, at gimplify-me.cc:79 since r13-222-g28896b38fabce818

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105736 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Summary|[12 Regression]

[Bug c++/105742] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] accepts-invalid non-dependent call to non-static member function from unrelated class in presence of dependent base

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105742 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug rtl-optimization/105744] [11/12/13 Regression] wrong code with -fexpensive-optimizations -flive-range-shrinkage on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105744 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.4

[Bug target/105745] [12/13 Regression] Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.2 Known to work|

[Bug target/105745] [12/13 Regression] Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745 --- Comment #2 from Christoph Reiter --- For "#pragma omp parallel for if (0)": #0 0x7ffacdeac6b3 in ntdll!RtlIsZeroMemory () from C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll #1 0x7ffacdeb5512 in ntdll!.misaligned_access () from C:\WINDOWS\SY

[Bug target/105745] [12/13 Regression] Conditional OpenMP directive fails with GCC 12

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105745 --- Comment #3 from Christoph Reiter --- Wild guess: I see _aligned_malloc() being used in libgomp, but not _aligned_free().