public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "ams at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/64491] [5 Regression] incorrect warning: loop exit may only be reached after undefined behavior Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:01:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-64491-4-L2LX6vbr1F@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-64491-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491 --- Comment #11 from Andrew Stubbs <ams at gcc dot gnu.org> --- The compiler has constructed the loop such that it reads like this: f = 0; tmp = 0; do { B[f] = tmp | A[f + 1]; if (f + 1 == 8) break; if (f + 1 > 0) tmp = A[f]; if (f + 1 == 7) { B[f + 1] = tmp; break; } f++; } while (1); It calculates the upper bound for f to be 7, which would make f + 1 a problem. maybe_lower_iteration_bound then correctly identifies this, and reduces the upper bound to 6. Consequently, the unnecessary "if (f + 1 == 8)" is removed, and all is well with the world. The problem is that leaves no path, from the loop header, that reaches a loop exit without passing the "undefined" statement. This makes it difficult to tell the difference between UB in the source code, and this temporary UB introduced by the compiler. I've no idea why the bounds are reduced here, rather than set properly in the first place? I've tried only warning when *all* the exit routes are to be removed, but they're not all listed in loop->bounds, so I'm stuck.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-24 16:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-01-04 20:24 [Bug c++/64491] New: " stuwph at live dot de 2015-01-04 20:46 ` [Bug c++/64491] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-01-10 15:58 ` joona.kiiski at iki dot fi 2015-01-10 16:04 ` joona.kiiski at iki dot fi 2015-01-10 16:49 ` [Bug c++/64491] [5 Regression] incorrect " Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2015-01-11 22:10 ` [Bug middle-end/64491] " joona.kiiski at gmail dot com 2015-01-12 7:18 ` Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot ethz.ch 2015-02-09 0:06 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-18 13:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-18 16:25 ` ams at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-18 16:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-20 11:28 ` ams at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-24 17:01 ` ams at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2015-02-24 19:18 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-18 12:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-18 12:53 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-18 14:27 ` ams at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-03-18 14:29 ` ams at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-64491-4-L2LX6vbr1F@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).