public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug middle-end/21474] missed optimizations when comparing address to NULL
[not found] <bug-21474-4397@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2007-11-15 17:03 ` manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: manu at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-11-15 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-15 17:03 -------
I think it is odd that if you call subr(i,0), it doesn't crash, that is &(p->a)
does not actually dereferences p. Nonetheless, I agree that the behaviour seems
inconsistent. A nice little project for someone. As they say, patches welcome!
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-11-15 17:03:30
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21474
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <bug-21474-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>]
* [Bug c/21474] New: missed optimizations when comparing address to NULL
@ 2005-05-09 17:22 trt at acm dot org
2005-05-09 17:26 ` [Bug middle-end/21474] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-12 15:09 ` trt at acm dot org
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: trt at acm dot org @ 2005-05-09 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
The program below gives some expressions which gcc could, but does not, evaluate
to true. E.g. gcc considers &p->a true, even when a is the first element
of the struct (is this a bug?), but does not consider &p->b[3] to be true.
struct foo {int a, b[10];};
int subr(int i, struct foo *p)
{
int x[10];
#if 0
// gcc folds this
if (&p->a) return 1;
#else
// but not these
if (&p->b[3]) return 1;
if (&x[3] != 0) return 1;
if (&x[i] != 0) return 1; // not sure if this one is safe to fold
#endif
return 0;
}
--
Summary: missed optimizations when comparing address to NULL
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P2
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: trt at acm dot org
CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21474
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/21474] missed optimizations when comparing address to NULL
2005-05-09 17:22 [Bug c/21474] New: " trt at acm dot org
@ 2005-05-09 17:26 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-12 15:09 ` trt at acm dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-09 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-09 17:26 -------
Actually I don't think it is safe to fold any of these.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|c |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21474
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [Bug middle-end/21474] missed optimizations when comparing address to NULL
2005-05-09 17:22 [Bug c/21474] New: " trt at acm dot org
2005-05-09 17:26 ` [Bug middle-end/21474] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-12 15:09 ` trt at acm dot org
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: trt at acm dot org @ 2005-05-12 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From trt at acm dot org 2005-05-12 15:08 -------
I think it is reasonable to assume the address of an auto variable is non-NULL,
and so the address of anything in the local "int x[10];" is non-NULL.
So gcc can (and does) fold "if (x) ..." and "if (&x[0]) ..."
gcc does not fold "if (&x[3]) ..." due to the the quirk that
that it is represented as x+3 and fold does not recognize that to be non-NULL.
Now consider "if (&x[i])". The only legal values for i are 0..10,
which precludes any value of `i' that might cause &x[i] to be NULL.
I suppose if x were a pointer, instead of an array, then we wouldn't know
the legal range of values for `i'. But whatever the legal range happens to be
would still (I think) preclude values which could cause &x[i] to be NULL.
The argument for 'if (&p->b[3])' is more convoluted.
Suppose p is non-NULL, then surely this address should be considered non-NULL
for basically the same reason that &x[3] above is considered to be non-NULL.
Suppose instead that p is NULL, then surely a non-zero offset added to p
yields a non-NULL value.
That leaves "if (&p->a)" which gcc folds even though a's offset is zero.
I think this is arguably a bug. But if no one reports it as a bug ...
well I think this one could be argued either way.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21474
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-06-25 21:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <bug-21474-4397@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2007-11-15 17:03 ` [Bug middle-end/21474] missed optimizations when comparing address to NULL manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-21474-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2023-06-25 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2005-05-09 17:22 [Bug c/21474] New: " trt at acm dot org
2005-05-09 17:26 ` [Bug middle-end/21474] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-12 15:09 ` trt at acm dot org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).