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 C7E863858405; Mon,  3 Jan 2022 09:54:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C7E863858405
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/95663] static_cast checks for null even when
 the pointer is dereferenced
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 09:54:13 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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-95663-4-lTXgx3fkvz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-95663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-95663-4@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: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 09:54:13 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95663

--- Comment #22 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021, hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95663
>=20
> --- Comment #20 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> I really think with -fdelete-null-pointer-checks we should optimize away =
the
> pointer adjustment relying on the fact that program will segfault.
>=20
> I was wondering, -fdelete-null-pointer-checks currently requires pointer =
to be
> precisely 0.  We are already iffy here since the access is at non-0 offse=
t, but
> since infer_nonnull_range_by_dereference uses check_loadstore:
>=20
> static bool
> check_loadstore (gimple *, tree op, tree, void *data)
> {
>   if (TREE_CODE (op) =3D=3D MEM_REF || TREE_CODE (op) =3D=3D TARGET_MEM_R=
EF)
>     {
>       /* Some address spaces may legitimately dereference zero.  */
>       addr_space_t as =3D TYPE_ADDR_SPACE (TREE_TYPE (op));
>       if (targetm.addr_space.zero_address_valid (as))
>         return false;
>=20
>       return operand_equal_p (TREE_OPERAND (op, 0), (tree)data, 0);
>     }
>   return false;
> }
>=20
> which completely ignores MEM_REF_OFFSET we actually turn into trap access=
es
> that are arbitrarily far from NULL.  We also ignore handled components so=
 we

I think MEM_REF[(void *)0 + 4] is non-canonical (IIRC we "simplify" that=20
to MEM_REF[(void *)4])=