public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <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: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:14:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-95663-4-oaGyrqzrbq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-95663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95663

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-01-07
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Copied from the PR 98501 dup:

Consider this code:

struct base1 { int a; };
struct base2 { int b; };
struct derived : base1, base2 {};

derived& to_derived_bad(base2* b)
{
    return *static_cast<derived*>(b);
}

derived& to_derived_good(base2* b)
{
    return static_cast<derived&>(*b);
}

I believe both of these functions are functionally equivalent and should
generate the same code. Both functions cast pointer from base to derived if it
is not nullptr and both cause undefined behavior if it is nullptr.

GCC optimizes to_derived_good() to a single subtraction, but it inserts
nullptr-check into to_derived_bad():

to_derived_good(base2*):
    lea rax, [rdi-4]
    ret
to_derived_bad(base2*):
    lea rax, [rdi-4]
    test rdi, rdi
    mov edx, 0
    cmove rax, rdx
    ret

Could GCC omit the nullptr-check in to_derived_bad?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-07 13:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-06-13 10:52 [Bug c++/95663] New: " jzwinck at gmail dot com
2020-06-15  6:47 ` [Bug tree-optimization/95663] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-15 10:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-15 10:09 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-15 11:46 ` jzwinck at gmail dot com
2020-06-15 12:50 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-15 12:53 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-15 12:54 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-15 13:03 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2020-06-15 13:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-26 22:18 ` law at redhat dot com
2020-06-27  0:20 ` jzwinck at gmail dot com
2020-06-27 11:49 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-06-27 15:36 ` law at redhat dot com
2020-06-27 15:40 ` law at redhat dot com
2020-06-27 15:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-07 13:13 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-01-07 13:14 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2021-01-07 20:00 ` law at redhat dot com
2021-12-13 11:05 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-13 11:10 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-13 15:51 ` law at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-03  9:54 ` rguenther at suse dot de

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-95663-4-oaGyrqzrbq@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: link
Be 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).