[Bug tree-optimization/102690] [12 regression] g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C fails

["rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102690

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-10-12
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Oh, I can probably fix the

FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds-16.C  -std=gnu++17  scan-tree-dump-not
optimized "goto"

since the expected optimization is not valid.  But the IMHO bogus excess error
remains, see PR101480 for an analysis.  Quote:

--
What we see is the global variable construction function which accesses
just 'a', and yes, the call to 'new' is considered clobbering global
variables (including 'a'):

  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741824]:
  MEM[(struct __as_base  &)&a] ={v} {CLOBBER};
  a.m = 0;
  _5 = operator new [] (0);
  a.p = _5;
  goto <bb 4>; [100.00%]

  <bb 3> [local count: 8687547547]:
  _7 = (long unsigned int) i_6;
  _8 = _7 * 4;
  _9 = _5 + _8;
  MEM[(int *)_9] = 0;
  i_10 = i_6 + 1;

  <bb 4> [local count: 9761289362]:
  # i_6 = PHI <0(2), i_10(3)>
  _11 = a.m;
  if (i_6 < _11)
    goto <bb 3>; [89.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 5>; [11.00%]

  <bb 5> [local count: 1073741824]:
  return;

I suppose implementing the global operator new as accessing a.m would
be valid as IIRC lifetime of a starts when the CTOR is invoked, not
when it finished (otherwise the CTOR could not access the variable itself).

We somehow conclude that

_9: void * [1B, +INF]  EQUIVALENCES: { } (0 elements)

possibly because it cannot be NULL (?):

extract_range_from_stmt visiting:
_5 = operator new [] (0);
Found new range for _5: void * [1B, +INF]
marking stmt to be not simulated again

(huh?)

and then the -Warray-bounds warning concludes the access is always outside
of the allocated area.

I suspect when we'd arrive at VARYING we'd not issue the warning even
when the access would always extend beyond a zero-sized allocation.
--