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 A7106395A452; Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:21:14 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A7106395A452
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1591971674;
 bh=PD9MmifLJlhY96t+9eSFzDfwhTHir/XP7/Wz/OKxTUQ=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=dxNnmXiZsXZ0Vi3R37gfmCI3d/cERCYx72kY0h426+fMH2nLMamt/5tKTkG9/0l5D
 mdz16FHPejSDSAwOmEMDy+1geqVIp6p7gGdoFKIYxMs+ye4AGAyPz6KIS/jnQDbYl1
 is/sTLOCXZtVgSZl8b6TUJVAJCCu81G8of6hUufA=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95656] Inconsistent output in compiling an undefined function
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:21:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-95656-4-10LMJgYZAB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95656-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:21:14 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95656

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't see anything wrong on that.
You end up with essentially a !=3D nullptr test, which is in some cases opt=
imized
away, but during sanitization tests whether some address is non-NULL are
intentionally not optimized in case they would end up being NULL
(-fsanitize=3Dundefined implies -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks).
You get the same result if you use -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks without
sanitization.=