From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id C222138560A7; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:37:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C222138560A7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1692286666; bh=/XH1umqRAlJmLiyphYSMDHmh6dVW8jQxbY0CFrfdOHQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=EV4UhlAMkjAk1bgKQzFmduPU2Okde6PxBSBcS2tu0xfjpA7vl32pGq+Q5kteDpsiX GyJ+Rlwu3PXwANURk3iMNcRF+qjomA4re2qUeY58NXpWJTyOt5b+R18XZIlp4A5LZh UhOxavGBMEm0/V294Yx4I+rkwNeE1W8mVv2DUmnY= From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/111009] [12/13/14 regression] -fno-strict-overflow erroneously elides null pointer checks and causes SIGSEGV on perf from linux-6.4.10 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:37:45 +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: amacleod at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111009 --- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod --- > At the hazard of stating the obvious: it's a wrong-code when you execute = it > (not a gcc ICE). >=20 doh. of course.=20 test is in progress. Richi was correct. Although the code in range-ops for fold_range is correct, op1_range cannot make the same assumptions that fold_range does because it has no concept of the symbolic values on the RHS. I am making op1_range more restrictive.=