[Bug target/102974] GCC optimization is very poor for add carry and multiplication combos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974 --- Comment #13 from cqwrteur --- Hi, the problem comes out GCC does not do a very good job to deal with crypto computations that usually exploit all sorts of patterns. template inline constexpr T add_carry_no_carry_in(T a,T b,T& carryout) noe

[Bug target/102974] GCC optimization is very poor for add carry and multiplication combos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974 --- Comment #14 from cqwrteur --- template inline constexpr T add_carry_no_carry_in(T a,T b,T& carryout) noexcept { T res{a+b}; carryout=res inline constexpr T add_carry(T a,T b,T carryin,T& carryout) noexcept { assume(carryin==0||ca

[Bug target/102974] GCC optimization is very poor for add carry and multiplication combos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974 --- Comment #15 from cqwrteur --- template<::std::unsigned_integral T> inline constexpr T add_carry_no_carry_in(T a,T b,T& carryout) noexcept { T res{a+b}; carryout=res inline constexpr T add_carry(T a,T b,T carryin,T& carryout) noexcept

[Bug c/102989] Implement C2x's n2763 (_BitInt)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102989 --- Comment #63 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #62) > What the patch including incremental one currently does is: > 1) small _BitInt (on x86-64 N <= 64) - the BITINT_TYPEs are kept as is in > the IL >and expa

[Bug libgcc/109712] [13/14 Regression] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.2 Priority|P3

[Bug c++/110137] New: implement clang -fassume-sane-operator-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137 Bug ID: 110137 Summary: implement clang -fassume-sane-operator-new Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/110137] implement clang -fassume-sane-operator-new

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110137 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |enhancement Keywords|

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, ptk.prasertsuk at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > --- Comment #11 from Pontakorn Prasertsuk > --- > (In reply to rguent...@s

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aagarwa at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug tree-optimization/109143] PTA compile-time hog with many calls

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109143 --- Comment #4 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:21bf2b2fd99d7a94049610fc2f82db77f725d025 commit r14-1561-g21bf2b2fd99d7a94049610fc2f82db77f725d025 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug middle-end/110055] Dangling pointer warning inside std::vector on RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110055 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84eec2916fa68cd2e2b3a2cf764f2ba595cce843 commit r14-1562-g84eec2916fa68cd2e2b3a2cf764f2ba595cce843 Author: Richard Biener Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/110131] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r12-6924-gc2b610e7c6c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110131 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amacleod at redhat dot com P

[Bug target/106769] PPCLE: vec_extract(vector unsigned int) unnecessary rldicl after mfvsrwz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106769 --- Comment #3 from HaoChen Gui --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2) > I wonder if Ajit's REE changes catch this unneeded zero extension? mfvsrwz can be defined as a zero-extend on a vector select other than a SI mode move from "wa"

[Bug tree-optimization/110134] [10/11/12/13/14 Regression] (-unsigned1) != CST is not optimized to unsigned1 != CST at the gimple level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110134 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 Target Milestone|---

[Bug libstdc++/110138] New: Extra constructor called when using basic_string::operator+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138 Bug ID: 110138 Summary: Extra constructor called when using basic_string::operator+ Product: gcc Version: 13.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal P

[Bug middle-end/110055] [13 Regression] Dangling pointer warning inside std::vector on RISC-V

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110055 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Pri

[Bug ipa/109983] [12/13 regression] Wireshark compilation hangs with -O2 -fipa-pta

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109983 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2

[Bug libstdc++/110138] Extra constructor called when using basic_string::operator+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138 --- Comment #1 from Hongyu Wang --- operator+ now calls std::__cxx11::basic_string, myAlloc_ >::get_allocator, and it will call the constructor again after gimplify __attribute__((nodiscard)) struct allocator_type std::__cxx11::basic_string, my

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov --- malloc and friends modify 'errno' on failure, so in they would have to be special-cased for alias analysis.

[Bug libstdc++/110139] New: [libstdc++] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 Bug ID: 110139 Summary: [libstdc++] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang) Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: nor

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [libstdc++] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 --- Comment #1 from Joseph Faulls --- Created attachment 55270 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55270&action=edit Similar test case that causes a warning in gcc / error in clang

[Bug target/110100] __builtin_aarch64_st64b stores to the wrong address

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110100 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug libgcc/109712] [13/14 Regression] Segmentation fault in linear_search_fdes

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109712 Florian Weimer changed: What|Removed |Added Target|x86_64-linux-gnu| Assignee|unassigned at gcc

[Bug target/110136] After optimization, the $r1 register will be broken when jumping to the jump table, resulting in a significant increase in the false prediction rate of branch prediction.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136 --- Comment #3 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > >In the regrename passover optimization > > I am trying to understand the issue. > > 5912 ldx.d $r20,$r16,$r19 > 5913 add.d $r1,$r16,$r20 > 5

[Bug target/110136] After optimization, the $r1 register will be broken when jumping to the jump table, resulting in a significant increase in the false prediction rate of branch prediction.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110136 --- Comment #4 from chenglulu --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > > >In the regrename passover optimization > > > > I am trying to understand the issue. > > > > 5912 ldx.d $

[Bug libstdc++/110138] Extra constructor called when using basic_string::operator+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Why do you care how many times an allocator is copied? They should be cheap (essentially free) to copy. A far more interesting test would look at how many bytes are allocated for string concatenation: #i

[Bug libstdc++/110138] Extra constructor called when using basic_string::operator+

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110138 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Hongyu Wang from comment #0) > GCC 12.3/Clang 16 outputs: > Alloc: 3 > Alloc: 6 > Alloc: 9 > Alloc: 12 "Clang 16" here actually means "Any version of Clang with libstdc++ headers from GCC 12"

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |13.2 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- GCC gives an error for the original testcase with -pedantic In file included from arr.cc:1: /home/jwakely/gcc/13.1.0/include/c++/13.1.0/array: In instantiation of 'constexpr std::array<_Tp, _Nm>::value_ty

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #60 from Alexander Klepikov --- > Maybe it's easier to add some shift specific passes. Well, I couldn't think of anything better and ported the loop optimization pass. More precisely, all loop optimization passes, because they are t

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 --- Comment #4 from Joseph Faulls --- Amazing, thanks for the swift response and fix! Ah yes, I didn't try -pedantic. Do we want a patch for this? I can submit if you like, but it'd likely be you who accepts it :)

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #61 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #60) > > Maybe it's easier to add some shift specific passes. > > Well, I couldn't think of anything better and ported the loop optimization > pass. More precisely,

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- No need, thanks. I'm already running tests with a patched tree, I'll push it today (and backport to gcc-13).

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigne

[Bug target/106907] gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.cc:23155: strange expression ?

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106907 --- Comment #5 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by jeevitha : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c4deccd44655c5d748dfed200a37f2b678c32fe8 commit r14-1567-gc4deccd44655c5d748dfed200a37f2b678c32fe8 Author: Jeevitha Palanisamy Date:

[Bug libstdc++/108178] Filesystem::copy_file can't copy from /proc on Linux machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:07a0e108247f23fcb919c61595adae143f1ea02a commit r14-1570-g07a0e108247f23fcb919c61595adae143f1ea02a Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 --- Comment #7 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:56001fad4ecc32396beead6644906e3846244b67 commit r14-1573-g56001fad4ecc32396beead6644906e3846244b67 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date:

[Bug c++/110140] New: Vector extensions cause false conflict in template argument deduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110140 Bug ID: 110140 Summary: Vector extensions cause false conflict in template argument deduction Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug tree-optimization/110035] Missed optimization for dependent assignment statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110035 > > --- Comment #15 from Alexander Monakov --- > malloc and friends modify 'errno'

[Bug c/110141] New: Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110141 Bug ID: 110141 Summary: Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug middle-end/79173] add-with-carry and subtract-with-borrow support (x86_64 and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned a

[Bug middle-end/31542] Incorrect optization with nan values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31542 --- Comment #5 from Scott Minster --- Thanks for looking at this old bug. I had totally forgotten about it myself! I agree that it does not seem to affect any recent version of GCC. It was likely fixed in GCC 4, and doesn't seem to affect any

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #62 from Alexander Klepikov --- > I'm a bit concerned about the increased compile time. Have you observed > anything (negative) in this regard? My project is small and it compiles in under 1 second on both clean and patched GCC. sh

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #63 from Oleg Endo --- (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #62) > > My project is small and it compiles in under 1 second on both clean and > patched GCC. sh.exp test suite mean run time is 117s on clean and 119s on > patche

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #64 from Alexander Klepikov --- > We have to consider that SH is also a linux target and it's also used to > build larger applications (and GCC itself ...). It'd be good to not regress > too much in this regard. One way to check it

[Bug fortran/95644] [F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644 Francois-Xavier Coudert changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||13.0 Target Milestone|12.4

[Bug fortran/105105] [Meta] Fortran IEEE support

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105105 Bug 105105 depends on bug 95644, which changed state. Bug 95644 Summary: [F2018] IEEE_FMA is missing from the IEEE_ARITHMETIC module https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95644 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug middle-end/110142] New: [14 Regression] x264 from SPECCPU 2017 miscompares from g:2f482a07365d9f4a94a56edd13b7f01b8f78b5a0

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110142 Bug ID: 110142 Summary: [14 Regression] x264 from SPECCPU 2017 miscompares from g:2f482a07365d9f4a94a56edd13b7f01b8f78b5a0 Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug libgomp/109837] [OpenMP] despite 'requires unified_address' there is segfault when 'is_device_ptr' is not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109837 --- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus --- Actually, I missed a crucial fine print regarding 'defaultmap(default)' implicit mapping of pointers in C/C++. GCC actually works (with firstprivate or with normal mapping) → https://github.com/SOLLVE/sollve

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:32f2b0f32816af816605dbe8060fb903cf7d5603 commit r13-7418-g32f2b0f32816af816605dbe8060fb903cf7d5603 Author: Jonathan Wake

[Bug libstdc++/110139] [13/14 Regression] Ambiguous use of [] operator for 0-sized arrays (with clang)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110139 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/110054] stdx::simd masked store should not use non-temporal store instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054 --- Comment #2 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:27e45b7597d6fb1a71927d658a0294797b720c0a commit r14-1577-g27e45b7597d6fb1a71927d658a0294797b720c0a Author: Matthias Kretz Date:

[Bug libstdc++/109822] Converting std::experimental::simd masks yields an error

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109822 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Matthias Kretz : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9165ede56ababd6471e7a2ce4eab30f3d5129e14 commit r14-1578-g9165ede56ababd6471e7a2ce4eab30f3d5129e14 Author: Matthias Kretz Date:

[Bug modula2/110125] Variables are reported as uninitialized when only set inside WITH statement

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110125 Gaius Mulley changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-06-06 Ever confirmed|0

[Bug target/110132] aarch64: Bogus -Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch with ls64 builtins

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110132 Alex Coplan changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org Last

[Bug libstdc++/108178] Filesystem::copy_file can't copy from /proc on Linux machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c0a57904308ad0f10833f38cb207c750e5658b6b commit r13-7420-gc0a57904308ad0f10833f38cb207c750e5658b6b Author: Jonathan Wake

[Bug libstdc++/110054] stdx::simd masked store should not use non-temporal store instruction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110054 --- Comment #3 from Matthias Kretz (Vir) --- Fixed on master. Will backport later.

[Bug libstdc++/108178] Filesystem::copy_file can't copy from /proc on Linux machines

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108178 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.5

[Bug libstdc++/110143] New: std::format for pointer arguments does not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143 Bug ID: 110143 Summary: std::format for pointer arguments does not work Product: gcc Version: 13.1.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component

[Bug libstdc++/110143] std::format for pointer arguments does not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143 --- Comment #1 from Bruno Haible --- Created attachment 55273 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=55273&action=edit test case bug2.cc

[Bug modula2/110126] Variables are reported as unused when only referenced by ASM statements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110126 --- Comment #1 from Gaius Mulley --- The procedure test is unreachable, if the module is re-written as: MODULE fooasm ; VAR x: INTEGER; PROCEDURE test; BEGIN ASM("" : : "m"(x)); END test; BEGIN test END fooasm. then the assembly outpu

[Bug tree-optimization/110038] [14 Regression] ICE: in rewrite_expr_tree_parallel, at tree-ssa-reassoc.cc:5522 with --param=tree-reassoc-width=2147483647

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110038 Martin Jambor changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug libstdc++/110143] std::format for pointer arguments does not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/110143] std::format for pointer arguments does not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- N.B. the library agrees that int* cannot be formatted: /usr/include/fmt/core.h:1751:17: error: static assertion failed: Formatting of non-void pointers is disallowed. 1751 | static_assert(formattable_

[Bug libstdc++/110143] std::format for pointer arguments does not work

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110143 --- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > Those are the pointer specializations that are supported, and you can't use > them to format int* I see. If 'int*' was supported as a "pointer" here, 'char*' w

[Bug libstdc++/104772] std::numeric_limits<__float128> should be specialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104772 --- Comment #11 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jonathan Wakely : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:6261d10521f9fdc2a43d54b4dc365025288aa8e9 commit r14-1582-g6261d10521f9fdc2a43d54b4dc365025288aa8e9 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date

[Bug c++/58050] No return value optimization when calling static function through unnamed temporary

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58050 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milest

[Bug c++/58055] [meta-bug] RVO / NRVO improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58055 Bug 58055 depends on bug 58050, which changed state. Bug 58050 Summary: No return value optimization when calling static function through unnamed temporary https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58050 What|Removed

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #65 from Alexander Klepikov --- > I'm thinking of something else. During kernel compile I got few internal errors in different passes. That is, additional loop optimization pass patch is no good at all.

[Bug c++/96004] Copy elision with conditional

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96004 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Sta

[Bug c++/58487] Missed return value optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58487 --- Comment #5 from Jason Merrill --- *** Bug 96004 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/58055] [meta-bug] RVO / NRVO improvements

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58055 Bug 58055 depends on bug 96004, which changed state. Bug 96004 Summary: Copy elision with conditional https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96004 What|Removed |Added --

[Bug target/110144] New: cris-unknown-elf cross build fails with ICE if RTL checking is enabled

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110144 Bug ID: 110144 Summary: cris-unknown-elf cross build fails with ICE if RTL checking is enabled Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor

[Bug c++/51571] No named return value optimization while adding a dummy scope

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571 Jason Merrill changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org Sta

[Bug middle-end/79173] add-with-carry and subtract-with-borrow support (x86_64 and others)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79173 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #55271|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug libstdc++/104772] std::numeric_limits<__float128> should be specialized

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104772 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug libstdc++/110145] New: 20_util/to_chars/double.cc fails for -m32 -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110145 Bug ID: 110145 Summary: 20_util/to_chars/double.cc fails for -m32 -fexcess-precision=standard Product: gcc Version: 14.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Keywords: testsuit

[Bug libgomp/109837] [OpenMP] despite 'requires unified_address' there is segfault when 'is_device_ptr' is not used

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109837 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #2) > (For GCN, enabling unified_address makes sense.) Now done via commit r14-1584-gf1af7d65ff64fe7102d1490ef46ea491a533e641 > TODO: It does not harm to have some F

[Bug libstdc++/110145] 20_util/to_chars/double.cc fails for -m32 -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110145 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #1

[Bug libstdc++/110145] 20_util/to_chars/double.cc fails for -m32 -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110145 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1) > Weird, the 1e126 constant shouldn't be with excess precision because it is > stored into a double field (using ctor). Yeah, I've fixed nearly all the other te

[Bug target/110146] New: ICE in riscv_vector::function_builder::add_unique_function()

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110146 Bug ID: 110146 Summary: ICE in riscv_vector::function_builder::add_unique_function() Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug libstdc++/110145] 20_util/to_chars/double.cc fails for -m32 -fexcess-precision=standard

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110145 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- I've tried struct S { double value; constexpr S(double value) : value (value) {} }; inline constexpr S s[] = { 1e126 }; int main () { __builtin_printf ("%.32La %.32La\n", (long double) s[0].value, (l

[Bug c++/110140] Vector extensions cause false conflict in template argument deduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110140 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||rejects-valid --- Comment #1 from Andre

[Bug c++/110140] Vector extensions cause false conflict in template argument deduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110140 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Status|UNCONFIRME

[Bug c++/100765] attribute incorrectly applied during type alias deduction

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100765 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||gcc-bugzilla@richardebeling

[Bug target/102974] GCC optimization is very poor for add carry and multiplication combos

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102974 --- Comment #16 from Mason --- For the record, the example I provided was intended to show that, with some help, GCC can generate good code for bigint multiplication. In this situation, "help" means a short asm template.

[Bug middle-end/31542] Incorrect optization with nan values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31542 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.5.0 Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/110141] Wrong code at -O2 on x86_64-linux-gnu

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110141 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Another -fstack-reuse= issue.

[Bug demangler/110147] New: UBSAN error in rust-demangle.c: NULL pointer passed to memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110147 Bug ID: 110147 Summary: UBSAN error in rust-demangle.c: NULL pointer passed to memcpy Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug demangler/110147] UBSAN error in rust-demangle.c: NULL pointer passed to memcpy

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110147 --- Comment #1 from lukas.dresel at cs dot ucsb.edu --- The invocation was `rust_demangle(mangled=0x18140ad "_RYC0.vdj\\lc[kniso,bz", options=0x103)`. The original bug report to binutils can be found here with more details: https://sourceware.or

[Bug c++/110122] [13/14 Regression] using an aggregate with a member variable with a user defined copy constructor in a class NTTP causes capture and use of the `this` pointer in a generic lambda to p

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110122 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Palka --- (In reply to waffl3x from comment #3) > Very cool, thanks, since your test case seems to cause problems in GCC 11 > and GCC 12 does that mean the bug goes deeper than I thought? > > (In reply to Patrick Pal

[Bug target/54089] [SH] Refactor shift patterns

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54089 --- Comment #66 from Alexander Klepikov --- (In reply to Alexander Klepikov from comment #65) > > I'm thinking of something else. > > During kernel compile I got few internal errors in different passes. That > is, additional loop optimization p

[Bug libstdc++/109947] std::expected monadic operations do not support move-only error types yet

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109947 --- Comment #9 from Martin Seemann --- That's great news, looking forward to the next point release. Thank you very much for taking this to the committee and getting the process in motion so quickly!

[Bug fortran/106050] ICE in reject_statement, at fortran/parse.cc:2879 since r8-3056-g5bab4c9631c478b7

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106050 kargl at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P4

[Bug target/109610] [14 regression] gcc.target/powerpc/dform-3.c fails after r14-172-g0368d169492017

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109610 seurer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug target/43892] PowerPC suboptimal "add with carry" optimization

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43892 --- Comment #37 from Jakub Jelinek --- What happened with this patch?

[Bug tree-optimization/110062] missed vectorization in graphicsmagick

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110062 Jan Hubicka changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka ---

[Bug middle-end/110148] New: TSVC s242 regression between g:c0df96b3cda5738afbba3a65bb054183c5cd5530 and g:e4c986fde56a6248f8fbe6cf0704e1da34b055d8

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110148 Bug ID: 110148 Summary: TSVC s242 regression between g:c0df96b3cda5738afbba3a65bb054183c5cd5530 and g:e4c986fde56a6248f8fbe6cf0704e1da34b055d8 Product: gcc Versi

[Bug d/110113] gdc -fpreview=dip1021 crash in d/dmd/root/aav.d:127 dmd_aaGetRvalue from DsymbolTable::lookup(Identifier const*)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110113 ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ibuclaw at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/71414] 2x slower than clang summing small float array, GCC should consider larger vectorization factor for "unrolling" reductions

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71414 Raphael C changed: What|Removed |Added CC||drraph at gmail dot com --- Comment #12 from

  1   2   >