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 463D1385E836; Wed,  8 May 2024 18:26:39 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 463D1385E836
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1715192799;
	bh=cdl1fHTfpuJJiH57+oZm4xl8YXT98joUd6jB+oXMn2s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=UNMUEUuXaLpuOEiiDlo4rUsI0sAFJntFy+ou/rt7ZGb9DQyl1+KkJy2OENf4ljnM0
	 0YSPaIWlzmclLF2Pyz/97xpLYurEqxoIBtFphIYYonXLE9ube8SSi3KDDSMaHNZeVP
	 D9lxZ4aRseoTEtE5hjT+Iy7pclayfzK25qp9S8Tg=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/111009] [12/13 regression] -fno-strict-overflow
 erroneously elides null pointer checks and causes SIGSEGV on perf from
 linux-6.4.10
Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 18:26:38 +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: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-111009-4-T8t3q91mRA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111009-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111009-4@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=3D111009

--- Comment #14 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
Created attachment 58134
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D58134&action=3Dedit
adjusted patch

(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #13)
> Andrew - this doesn't pick to gcc-13 because of the following but we shou=
ld
> backport the fix somehow.  Can you please see to that in time for GCC 13.3
> (next week)?
>=20
Sure. Its just missing the definition of contains_zero_p () from value-rang=
e.h
that must have been added in an earlier patch.   I'm running the following
tweaked patch thru testing for GCC 13=