From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 88F363861970; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:35:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 88F363861970
From: "msebor at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/101830] [12 Regression] Incorrect error
 messages beginning with r12-2591 (backward jump threader)
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:35:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101830-4-HLePOZhVDU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101830-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101830-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 17:35:04 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101830

--- Comment #6 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've only looked at the first warning so far.  It's issued for the access i=
n bb
8:

  <bb 5> [local count: 4057510040]:
  pos.80_31 =3D pos;
  if (pos.80_31 <=3D 1023)
    goto <bb 8>; [96.34%]
  else
    goto <bb 6>; [3.66%]

  <bb 8> [local count: 256307115]:
  # pos.80_21 =3D PHI <pos.80_81(36)>
  _1 =3D linebuf[pos.80_21];   <<< -Warray-bounds
  ...

The index is in the range [1024, INT_MAX] so the warning is correct given t=
he
IL. There isn't much I see that could be improved about the diagnostic exce=
pt
mentioning the range of the subscript rather than just its lower bound.  Th=
is
instance of the warning or its phrasing also haven't changed in years.  It's
not the result of a recent enhancement or a questionable heuristic but simp=
ly
reflects a change in the IL, and it's always been phrased as "is out of
bounds".  No "may be out of bounds" form exists, never has, and adding one
wouldn't help in this instance.

That said, since pos is a global variable, the test in safe_inc_pos() that
would otherwise constrain its value only has that effect in the absence of
intervening statements that might overwrite it.  You might get a better res=
ult
with a pair of "setter" and "getter" functions where the latter asserted the
range via __builtin_unreachable() before returning the variable.  Otherwise,
the test is what likely is used by the backward threader to introduce the
unreachable branch which isn't eliminated because GCC can't prove the varia=
ble
isn't incremented beyond its upper limit.  (Aldy is in a much better positi=
on
to explain this.)=