[Bug target/106609] [SH] miscompilation due to incorrect elimination of comparisons to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106609 --- Comment #6 from Sébastien Michelland --- First bad commit is r12-1955-ga86b3453fc6e29cf0e19916b01c393652d838d56, though I don't know what path is taken from there to the incorrect rewrite.

[Bug middle-end/106662] New: [OpenMP] 'for simd firstprivate(j) lastprivate(j)' with 'parallel shared(j)' gives unexpected result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106662 Bug ID: 106662 Summary: [OpenMP] 'for simd firstprivate(j) lastprivate(j)' with 'parallel shared(j)' gives unexpected result Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRM

[Bug tree-optimization/106663] New: FSM threading doesn't handle computed goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106663 Bug ID: 106663 Summary: FSM threading doesn't handle computed goto Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: tree-

[Bug tree-optimization/106663] FSM threading doesn't handle computed goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106663 --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 53468 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53468&action=edit patch restoring backward threader functionality The attached restores functionality in the backwards threader

[Bug tree-optimization/106663] FSM threading doesn't handle computed goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106663 Aldy Hernandez changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/106663] FSM threading doesn't handle computed goto

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106663 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Richard B

[Bug c++/106658] [C++23] P2590 - Explicit lifetime management

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106658 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug target/106635] AARCH64 STUR instruction causes bus error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106635 --- Comment #11 from Richard Earnshaw --- (In reply to Xiaoguang from comment #9) > Yeah, I also find such description, my memory type is uncachable normal > memory, but not device memory > I use mmap to get the virtual address with an O_SYNC in

[Bug gcov-profile/106659] [13 Regression] error: no member named 'fancy_abort' in namespace 'std'; did you mean simply 'fancy_abort'

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106659 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- looks obvious to me

[Bug c++/106658] [C++23] P2590 - Explicit lifetime management

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106658 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- See for example PR101641 where even existing cases are currently impossible to get right. So the only way to make std::start_lifetime_at is to somehow emit a hard memory barrier for the compiler _and_ mak

[Bug target/106635] AARCH64 STUR instruction causes bus error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106635 --- Comment #12 from Xiaoguang --- (In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #11) > (In reply to Xiaoguang from comment #9) > > Yeah, I also find such description, my memory type is uncachable normal > > memory, but not device memory > > I use

[Bug libstdc++/106611] std::is_nothrow_copy_constructible returns wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Nikolas Klauser from comment #2) > static_assert(!noexcept(std::declval(; > > is fine. It doesn't look fine to me! Is there a 'CopyConstructible(' missing? The reproducer for comment 3

[Bug libstdc++/106611] std::is_nothrow_copy_constructible returns wrong result

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106611 --- Comment #5 from Nikolas Klauser --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > (In reply to Nikolas Klauser from comment #2) > > static_assert(!noexcept(std::declval(; > > > > is fine. > > It doesn't look fine to me! Is there a '

[Bug libstdc++/106664] New: std::valarray::resize(0): spurious -Walloc-zero warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106664 Bug ID: 106664 Summary: std::valarray::resize(0): spurious -Walloc-zero warning Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Pri

[Bug c++/104493] OpenMP offload map cannot handle const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104493 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:92a5de3df2dc958d6b3d18a0466189ad31f5ae79 commit r13-2089-g92a5de3df2dc958d6b3d18a0466189ad31f5ae79 Author: Tobias Burnus Date: W

[Bug c++/106665] New: Cannot pass barrier by reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106665 Bug ID: 106665 Summary: Cannot pass barrier by reference Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/104493] OpenMP offload map cannot handle const

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104493 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/106665] Cannot pass barrier by reference

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106665 --- Comment #1 from SHIH YEN-TE --- Another workaround is swap the declaration order of variable pool and sync_point. Changed from vector pool; barrier sync_point(8); To barrier sync_point(8); vector pool; Then the Segmentat

[Bug middle-end/106492] [OpenMP] ICE in #pragma omp for simd and bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106492 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a96e5a928916ed5be9dea181316ebf8c174285e7 commit r11-10210-ga96e5a928916ed5be9dea181316ebf8c174285e7 Author: Tobias Burnus

[Bug middle-end/106492] [OpenMP] ICE in #pragma omp for simd and bitfields

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106492 Tobias Burnus changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug rtl-optimization/81501] mulitple calls to __tls_get_addr() with -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501 Roy Jacobson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||roi.jacobson1 at gmail dot com --- Commen

[Bug middle-end/106548] [OpenMP] ICE in #pragma openmp parallel for simd linear with long long variables

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106548 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d9c9424d2c4f7b25acfc00db0076a65882c8a99f commit r13-2091-gd9c9424d2c4f7b25acfc00db0076a65882c8a99f Author: Tobias Burnus Date: W

[Bug fortran/106566] [OpenMP] declare simd fails with with bogus "already been host associated" for module procedures

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106566 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Tobias Burnus : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:1513512ec7d0751cba30c9c8804f2be462acfb9b commit r13-2093-g1513512ec7d0751cba30c9c8804f2be462acfb9b Author: Tobias Burnus Date: W

[Bug c++/106666] New: Anonymous struct incorrectly allows types with constructors if placed in a known sized array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 Bug ID: 10 Summary: Anonymous struct incorrectly allows types with constructors if placed in a known sized array Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug c++/106667] New: Diagnosing misuses of capturing lambda coroutines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106667 Bug ID: 106667 Summary: Diagnosing misuses of capturing lambda coroutines Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug c++/104548] parser rejects alias template id of lambda in unevaluated-context and accepts when no alias is used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104548 John Eivind Helset changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jehelset at gmail dot com --- Comm

[Bug fortran/46539] libquadmath: Add -static-libquadmath

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46539 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:745be54bd6634fe63d6be83615e264c83d2ae9f9 commit r13-2094-g745be54bd6634fe63d6be83615e264c83d2ae9f9 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: We

[Bug fortran/46539] libquadmath: Add -static-libquadmath

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46539 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug rtl-optimization/81501] mulitple calls to __tls_get_addr() with -fPIC

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81501 --- Comment #7 from Yann Droneaud --- (In reply to Roy Jacobson from comment #6) > We recently upgraded our toolchain from GCC9 to GCC11, and we're seeing > __tls_get_addr take up to 10% of total runtime under some workloads, where > it was 1-2%

[Bug c++/106668] New: ICE: friend function in struct declaration in generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106668 Bug ID: 106668 Summary: ICE: friend function in struct declaration in generic lambda Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug c++/106668] ICE: friend function in struct declaration in generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106668 --- Comment #1 from Jean-Michaël Celerier --- When checking on gcc.godbolt.org it seems that it crashes as far back as GCC 4.9.0 (and 4.8 doesn't seem to be able to compile generic lambdas)

[Bug c++/106668] ICE: friend function in struct declaration in generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106668 --- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek --- Fixed on trunk by commit e8ed26c2ac38ab1f6ed5a627d9089a9243e06a0c Author: Jason Merrill Date: Tue Jun 7 15:52:30 2022 -0400 c++: non-templated friends [PR105852] The previous patch for 105852 a

[Bug c++/106668] ICE: friend function in struct declaration in generic lambda

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106668 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug c++/106423] -Wc++20-compat diagnostics not suppressed by #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106423 --- Comment #3 from Tom Honermann --- I believe this issue can be resolved as fixed via commit 60468d6cd46a3bd3afe8ff856f82afcd4c65a217 for the gcc 13 release.

[Bug c++/106276] Missing -Wpessimizing-move warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106276 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8d22c7cb8b1a6f9b67c54a798dd5504244614e51 commit r13-2095-g8d22c7cb8b1a6f9b67c54a798dd5504244614e51 Author: Marek Polacek Date: Mo

[Bug c++/106423] -Wc++20-compat diagnostics not suppressed by #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106423 --- Comment #4 from Ville Voutilainen --- (In reply to Tom Honermann from comment #3) > I believe this issue can be resolved as fixed via commit > 60468d6cd46a3bd3afe8ff856f82afcd4c65a217 for the gcc 13 release. Yes, it's normal procedure that

[Bug c++/89780] -Wpessimizing-move is too agressive with templates and recommends pessimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89780 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6602a2b2dee16af6e2d451c704789356042b5881 commit r13-2096-g6602a2b2dee16af6e2d451c704789356042b5881 Author: Marek Polacek Date: Wed

[Bug target/106609] [SH] miscompilation due to incorrect elimination of comparisons to 0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106609 Mikael Pettersson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mikpelinux at gmail dot com --- Com

[Bug c++/106669] New: incorrect definition of viewable_range ("more madness with move-only views")

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106669 Bug ID: 106669 Summary: incorrect definition of viewable_range ("more madness with move-only views") Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/106666] Anonymous struct incorrectly allows types with constructors if placed in a known sized array

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/77314] Allows C++11 POD types in anonymous structures.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77314 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||twmouton at gmail dot com --- Comment #3

[Bug c++/90428] -Wredundant-move could warn for more cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90428 --- Comment #3 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6c136d53e89e32fe9d22e41e5df89c08d3470049 commit r13-2097-g6c136d53e89e32fe9d22e41e5df89c08d3470049 Author: Marek Polacek Date: Wed

[Bug libstdc++/106664] std::valarray::resize(0): spurious -Walloc-zero warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106664 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|tree-optimization |libstdc++ --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pi

[Bug c++/90428] -Wredundant-move could warn for more cases

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90428 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/106609] sh3eb-elf cross compiler is being miscompiled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106609 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Component|target |middle-end Summary|[SH] misc

[Bug libstdc++/106664] std::valarray::resize(0): spurious -Walloc-zero warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106664 --- Comment #2 from Vadim Zeitlin --- FWIW I think it's a rather useful warning as allocating 0 bytes is rarely intentional, i.e. I haven't seen any false positive occurrences of this warning in my own code. And in valarray case, it indicates a

[Bug fortran/106670] New: [OpenMP][5.2] Warn for unknown '!$ompx' (!$omx') sentinels

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106670 Bug ID: 106670 Summary: [OpenMP][5.2] Warn for unknown '!$ompx' (!$omx') sentinels Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: diagnostic, openmp

[Bug c++/67906] Missing warning about std::move without effect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906 --- Comment #12 from CVS Commits --- The trunk branch has been updated by Marek Polacek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:177e93e95272e9b373203dee5b28d2b284ffa05e commit r13-2099-g177e93e95272e9b373203dee5b28d2b284ffa05e Author: Marek Polacek Date: We

[Bug c++/67906] Missing warning about std::move without effect

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug c++/87403] [Meta-bug] Issues that suggest a new warning

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87403 Bug 87403 depends on bug 67906, which changed state. Bug 67906 Summary: Missing warning about std::move without effect https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67906 What|Removed |Added -

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349 --- Comment #19 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7b03e09c1c6058cd89ceea223ba11caca5ba2844 commit r11-10212-g7b03e09c1c6058cd89ceea223ba11caca5ba2844 Author: Segher B

[Bug testsuite/105349] [12 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/bswap-brw.c fails after r12-8221

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105349 --- Comment #20 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Segher Boessenkool : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cebbbc1596001e86c3c4d5f2223ddac50e5e0bb8 commit r10-10951-gcebbbc1596001e86c3c4d5f2223ddac50e5e0bb8 Author: Segher B

[Bug target/106640] [13 Regression] during RTL pass: stv ICE: RTL check: expected elt 1 type 'i' or 'n', have 'e' (rtx ashift) in compute_convert_gain, at config/i386/i386-features.cc:1251/1285

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106640 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:524c06610d2f28688655f12184e5bc615474 commit r13-2100-g524c06610d2f28688655f12184e5bc615474 Author: Roger Sayle Date: Wed A

[Bug analyzer/106539] -fanalyzer doesn't consider that realloc could shrink the buffer

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106539 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug analyzer/106551] [13 Regression] dup2 causes -fanalyzer ICE in valid_to_unchecked_state, at analyzer/sm-fd.cc:751

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106551 David Malcolm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug analyzer/106003] RFE: -fanalyzer could complain about misuse of file-descriptors

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106003 Bug 106003 depends on bug 106551, which changed state. Bug 106551 Summary: [13 Regression] dup2 causes -fanalyzer ICE in valid_to_unchecked_state, at analyzer/sm-fd.cc:751 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106551 What|

[Bug rtl-optimization/106594] [13 Regression] sign-extensions no longer merged into addressing mode

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106594 --- Comment #8 from Roger Sayle --- Time for a status update. The PR title is a little misleading; sign-extensions aren't really the problem, but it turns out that the equivalent zero-extensions aren't always optimized as well as the equivalent

[Bug target/106671] New: aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671 Bug ID: 106671 Summary: aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug c/106672] New: support Apple's old __private_extern__ keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106672 Bug ID: 106672 Summary: support Apple's old __private_extern__ keyword Product: gcc Version: 12.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c/106672] support Apple's old __private_extern__ keyword

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106672 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/106671] aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Shouldn't the linker add the BTI inside the ___veneer instead?

[Bug target/106671] aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671 --- Comment #2 from D Scott Phillips --- th(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Shouldn't the linker add the BTI inside the ___veneer instead? The bti instruction has to be placed at the target of the indirect branch (at the top of `fu

[Bug target/106671] aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/106671] aarch64: BTI instruction are not inserted for cross-section direct calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3) > Basically: > void > aarch64_print_patchable_function_entry (FILE *file, > unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT > patch_area_size, >

[Bug target/99889] Add powerpc ELFv1 support for -fpatchable-function-entry* with "o" sections

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99889 Kewen Lin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gc

[Bug ada/106673] New: compilation bug on abstract primitive pre'class aspect using for all construct on a string parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106673 Bug ID: 106673 Summary: compilation bug on abstract primitive pre'class aspect using for all construct on a string parameter Product: gcc Version: 12.1.0 Status: UNCONFI

[Bug ada/106673] compilation bug on abstract primitive pre'class aspect using for all construct on a string parameter

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106673 --- Comment #1 from David SAUVAGE - AdaLabs --- Created attachment 53470 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53470&action=edit reproducer

[Bug libgcc/106674] New: Potential for symbol conflicts between libgcc_s and libunwind

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106674 Bug ID: 106674 Summary: Potential for symbol conflicts between libgcc_s and libunwind Product: gcc Version: 12.1.1 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal