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 F0C4C3858419; Tue, 28 Dec 2021 19:53:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F0C4C3858419
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/103724] [9/10/11/12 Regression] invalid
 warning: iteration 7 invokes undefined behavior
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 19:53:37 +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: 11.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub 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: 9.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-103724-4-rYCzFNef3P@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103724-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103724-4@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: Tue, 28 Dec 2021 19:53:38 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103724

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Seems the reason we warn is that we first unswitch the loop because of the
(useless) b !=3D 0 test in the loop, and so end up with:
  if (b =3D=3D 0)
    for (int c =3D 0; c < 11; c++)
      d =3D a[c][c + 1];
  else
    for (int c =3D 0; c < 11; c++)
      {
        d =3D a[c >=3D b ? c - b : c][c + 1 >=3D b ? c + 1 - b : c + 1];
        if (b && c)
          d =3D c;
      }
(the c >=3D b and c + 1 >=3D b comparisons in the first loop can be simplif=
ied
because of the [0, 11] range for c), and on the first loop it indeed would
invoke UB in 7th iteration.
So the warning although it isn't clear from it (and the compiler doesn't kn=
ow
either) is about that if b is 0, which is something the user loop tests for,
then it invokes UB, otherwise it isn't known whether it does or doesn't.
This is a general problem with middle-end warnings, after unswitching, jump
threading and similar optimizations it is unclear what code has been
specialized on something that really ever happens in the code at runtime and
what is dead.=