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?
next prev 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: 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).