[Bug c++/107461] [12 Regression] ambiguity error for friend with templated constexpr argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #7

[Bug c++/107461] [12 Regression] ambiguity error for friend with templated constexpr argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|FIXED |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/107461] [12/13 Regression] ambiguity error for friend with templated constexpr argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P1 Summary|[12 Regression] a

[Bug middle-end/108657] csmith: possible wrong checksum with -O3 and -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657 --- Comment #5 from David Binderman --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #0) > Also, the possible bug seems to have first occurred sometime before 20230103 Also before 20221201: $ /home/dcb36/gcc/results.20221201/bin/gcc -w -O3 -ftriv

[Bug middle-end/108657] csmith: possible wrong checksum with -O3 and -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657 --- Comment #6 from David Binderman --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #5) > (In reply to David Binderman from comment #0) > > Also, the possible bug seems to have first occurred sometime before 20230103 > > Also before 20221201: An

[Bug middle-end/108657] csmith: possible wrong checksum with -O3 and -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108657 --- Comment #7 from David Binderman --- I can only go back as far as 20221028, when the git tree was installed. $ /home/dcb36/gcc/results.20221028/bin/gcc -w -O3 -ftrivial-auto-var-init=zero bug880.c $ ./a.out checksum = BCC02729 $ /home/dcb36/

[Bug target/108673] New: ICE with -fstack-clash-protection and noreturn attribute on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108673 Bug ID: 108673 Summary: ICE with -fstack-clash-protection and noreturn attribute on x86_64-w64-mingw32 Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug fortran/108453] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in gfc_trans_use_stmts, at fortran/trans-decl.cc:5361 since r6-3704-g2b3f52a2d0fb22ba

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108453 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:be8003ffcfb02dd8ef49ffec01bf96da2d973bc2 commit r11-10500-gbe8003ffcfb02dd8ef49ffec01bf96da2d973bc2 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/108421] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2862

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108421 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2235737a967c9eeabe7b02ffb014d8efef3276af commit r11-10502-g2235737a967c9eeabe7b02ffb014d8efef3276af Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/108502] ICE in gfc_check_dependency, at fortran/dependency.cc:1295

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108502 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d7ec0bdfeae883d852d7c0dfc67766a3793f5892 commit r11-10503-gd7ec0bdfeae883d852d7c0dfc67766a3793f5892 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/108501] [13 Regression] ICE in get_expr_storage_size, at fortran/interface.cc:2941

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108501 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:76a6f8470c8c786b271cb0d897de891fe0d4043f commit r11-10504-g76a6f8470c8c786b271cb0d897de891fe0d4043f Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/108420] [13 Regression] ICE in check_charlen_present, at fortran/iresolve.cc:98 since r13-4394-g3832c6f7e672e76b

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108420 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c3985fd624053502b0aad85132982b4f8970811a commit r11-10501-gc3985fd624053502b0aad85132982b4f8970811a Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/106209] ICE in add_init_expr_to_sym, at fortran/decl.cc:2132

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106209 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8e58d94ac56127ebca3a893284455032a707d948 commit r11-10505-g8e58d94ac56127ebca3a893284455032a707d948 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug fortran/108529] [10/11/12 Regression] ICE in transformational_result, at fortran/simplify.cc:478

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108529 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Harald Anlauf : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:60032329cde87a7505b7784e1dcfb09574ee2e90 commit r11-10506-g60032329cde87a7505b7784e1dcfb09574ee2e90 Author: Harald Anlauf

[Bug target/108673] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection and noreturn attribute on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108673 Christian Franke changed: What|Removed |Added CC||franke at computer dot org --- Comme

[Bug fortran/107721] Lost typespec with constant expressions using array constructors and parentheses

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107721 --- Comment #7 from Jerry DeLisle --- I should mention, this also fails: print *, [real:: ((/2, 3/))] ** 2 So we also have to deal with this. I think I have it figured out.

[Bug c++/70536] g++ doesn't emit DW_AT_name for DW_TAG_GNU_formal_parameter_pack

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70536 --- Comment #6 from Ed Catmur --- Resubmitted: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-February/611366.html Hopefully this time I'll remember to save the email for pinging.

[Bug c++/107461] [12/13 Regression] ambiguity error for friend with templated constexpr argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > Reduced testcase: Interestingly Clang also rejects this testcase, so I'm not sure if we were correct to accept it previously. Here's a more reduced testcase th

[Bug c++/107461] [12/13 Regression] ambiguity error for friend with templated constexpr argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461 --- Comment #10 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #9) > If we remove the line #1 then this bogus error disappears. The line 'B b;' rather.

[Bug c++/107461] [12/13 Regression] ambiguity error for friend with templated constexpr argument

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107461 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Patrick Palka from comment #9) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > > Reduced testcase: > > Interestingly Clang also rejects this testcase, so I'm not sure if we were > correct to a

[Bug libstdc++/108672] [13 Regression] g++.dg/modules/xtreme-header-2_a.H, _b.C, _c.C

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108672 --- Comment #1 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Hans-Peter Nilsson : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:72058eea9d407edc85558efc76cde5ceb1d06b0a commit r13-5702-g72058eea9d407edc85558efc76cde5ceb1d06b0a Author: Hans-Peter Nilsson

[Bug target/108673] ICE with -fstack-clash-protection and noreturn attribute on x86_64-w64-mingw32

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108673 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug target/90458] [10/11/12/13 Regression] mingw64: ICE in i386_pe_seh_unwind_emit, at config/i386/winnt.c:1258 with -fstack-clash-protection

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90458 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lh_mouse at 126 dot com --- Comment #7 f

[Bug c/108671] spurious "defined but not used" warning with static call back function

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108671 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed|

[Bug libstdc++/108674] New: [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 Bug ID: 108674 Summary: [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- I think this is a bug in clang in the first place for enabling unsigned-integer-overflow at all. I would file a bug with clang to disable unsigned-integer-overflow by default when using -fsanitize=undefined

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug libstdc++/97844] Unsigned Integer Overflow when comparing strings (|s1|<|s2|)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 108674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 Roman Lebedev changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/97844] Unsigned Integer Overflow when comparing strings (|s1|<|s2|)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97844 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- *** Bug 108674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski --- > This is quite the hot take. Hot take from 5 years ago. See te other bugs I referenced and even the mailing list emails that are referenced from there. Rather clang is the one who decided this breaking beh

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- See https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2016-07/msg00051.html . Sorry when I said 5 years I meant 7 years.

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #0) > I believe in the version 12, a new instance of such intentional wraparound > was introduced into libstdc++: https://godbolt.org/z/rq153fxKW No, that code is f

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #3) > This is incorrect. > unsigned-integer-overflow is *NOT* enabled by -fsanitize=undefined > It is enabled by -fsanitize=integer, separately. > I'm not enabling

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #9 from Roman Lebedev --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > (In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #0) > > I believe in the version 12, a new instance of such intentional wraparound > > was introduced into libstdc++: h

[Bug libstdc++/108674] [wish] *Please* silence *intentional* (non-UB!) unsigned overflow in an libstdc++ header

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108674 --- Comment #10 from Roman Lebedev --- Created attachment 54409 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54409&action=edit the patch I'm not at all familiar with the GCC's preferred patch protocol, this is the result of `git format-

[Bug testsuite/108675] New: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/*printf.c when stdio.h includes definitions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108675 Bug ID: 108675 Summary: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/*printf.c when stdio.h includes definitions Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severit