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 BA5973898383; Tue,  6 Dec 2022 07:43:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BA5973898383
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1670312612;
	bh=+TGXYGMhPP1srJOHZDNNV0qTlnKHcA1ZZakU7xLrm3I=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=J0Ewh3GUiDcUFhL79pwexwBrPsOxhxNwpMi4EWNlM08z9SOh4+/sqJ42iShdPimej
	 2OBBgyO59uV/++8bbec/y2AcljnmI/qEb0oCab/BehiHMpnQXhr0uxXzjo25Yrn4Oq
	 Q/3/G1RtCUn6CjTjzcoVQucqgPzi3HZQRwqfyo2I=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107986] [12/13 Regression] Bogus
 -Warray-bounds diagnostic with std::sort
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 07:43:32 +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: 12.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth 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: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: blocked cc keywords
Message-ID: <bug-107986-4-X4aFSqo0Ek@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107986-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107986-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107986

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |85316
                 CC|                            |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
One of the reasons we diagnose this is that we fail to compute a range
for 'qa_7'.  Before the VRP pass that diagnoses the -Warray-bounds violatio=
n we
have

  <bb 6> [local count: 1073741824]:
  # qa_7 =3D PHI <0(2), qa_6(5)>
  # RANGE [irange] int [0, 3] NONZERO 0x3
  # i_8 =3D PHI <0(2), i_16(5)>
  if (i_8 !=3D 3)
    goto <bb 3>; [75.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 7>; [25.00%]

  <bb 7> [local count: 268435456]:
  # RANGE [irange] long unsigned int [0, 2147483647][18446744071562067968,
+INF]
  _3 =3D (long unsigned int) qa_7;
  # RANGE [irange] long unsigned int [0, 8589934588][18446744065119617024,
18446744073709551612] NONZERO 0xfffffffffffffffc
  _4 =3D _3 * 4;
  # PT =3D { D.18799 } (escaped)
  # ALIGN =3D 4, MISALIGN =3D 0
  _5 =3D &a + _4;
  if (&a !=3D _5)
    goto <bb 8>; [53.47%]
  else
    goto <bb 17>; [46.53%]

  <bb 8> [local count: 143532440]:
  _11 =3D (signed long) _4;
  # RANGE [irange] long int [-2305843009213693952, 2305843009213693951]
  _20 =3D _11 /[ex] 4;
  # RANGE [irange] long unsigned int [0,
2305843009213693951][16140901064495857664, +INF]
  __n.3_21 =3D (long unsigned int) _20;
  # RANGE [irange] int [0, 63] NONZERO 0x3f
  _22 =3D __builtin_clzl (__n.3_21);
  # RANGE [irange] int [0, 63] NONZERO 0x3f
  _23 =3D 63 - _22;
  # RANGE [irange] long int [0, 63] NONZERO 0x3f
  _24 =3D (long int) _23;
  # RANGE [irange] long int [0, 126] NONZERO 0x7e
  _25 =3D _24 * 2;
  # USE =3D nonlocal escaped null { D.18799 } (escaped)
  # CLB =3D nonlocal escaped null { D.18799 } (escaped)
  std::__introsort_loop.isra (&a, _5, _25);
  if (_11 > 64)
    goto <bb 9>; [50.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 15>; [50.00%]

and we fail to eliminate this last conditional.  We also fail to
eliminate the (long)(((unsigned long)qa_37) * 4) /[ex] 4 round-trip
(because of possible overflow).

So even proving qa_7 is [0, +INF] would help a bit (not the diagnostic),
realizing qa_7 is [0, 3] like i_8 would be even better.  A testcase
for this could look like

void bar ();
void foo (int *a)
{
  int qa =3D 0;
  for (int i =3D 0; i < 3; i++)
    if (a[i])
      a[qa++] =3D 0;
  if (qa > 3)
    bar ();
}

where we should be able to eliminate the call to bar ().


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D85316
[Bug 85316] [meta-bug] VRP range propagation missed cases=