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 7A1C43858403; Fri,  9 Feb 2024 09:15:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7A1C43858403
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1707470111;
	bh=7Afq43Nx98Tp/9wv0biRG2YKZeUY/NXqc3YjkAFNhUM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JiMUSngSugZd0Rlt6f7TCHcKKA5Z4ccNvzBqFB5Ym52zGxLJjjiQx7R5sQiJlRxrP
	 tFfqQnVqQ0WXGBLOPbkn6eJjWtEC22M0Wu4yE0ghdt/E4L6mj//HbwqVZzUa3n7D57
	 /WVgit4zKUFga2XQj1AAoI1P7qzb/aEAKgAY1yz0=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/110754] assume create spurious load for volatile
 variable
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2024 09:15:10 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110754-4-1ncX9SUHKl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110754-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110754-4@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=3D110754

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
For volatile I'm afraid we can't pass n as an argument to the magic functio=
n,
perhaps
we could pass its address to it and do the load in there.  Perhaps ditto for
the atomics (that is C only of course), but that likely is what happens
already.
Sure, most likely such assumptions won't be really useful for anything, but
one could still say
volatile int n =3D p;
int m =3D 0;
[[assume (p =3D=3D (n & m))]];
if (p !=3D 0)
  ...
or similar.=