This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Optimization bug?

On 09/20/2015 12:38 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On September 20, 2015 1:40:12 AM GMT+02:00, Martin Sebor <> wrote:
On 09/19/2015 03:32 PM, SÃren Brinkmann wrote:
Hi Andrew,

On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 11:34AM -0700, wrote:

On Sep 19, 2015, at 11:00 AM, SÃren Brinkmann
<> wrote:


I recently came across some bug in my program that I could narrow
to the snipped below (also attached with a Makefile).

   extern unsigned int _vector_table;

You need the attribute weak here if the location of _vector_table
can be a null pointer.

Indeed, that fixes the problem. Would you have any additional
why the 'weak' is required in this case? To me it sounded like the
'-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks' should be sufficient.

-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks prevents GCC from removing tests
for null pointers after such pointers have been dereferenced. For
example, in the following function, GCC normally eliminates the
second if statement because the first statement lets it assume
that p is not null (otherwise dereferencing it would be undefined).

   int foo (int *p) {
     if (*p == 0) return 0;
     if (p == 0) return 1;
     return 2;

The option doesn't affect other assumptions such as that every
object and function in a program lives at a valid, non-null

Actually we abuse this flag for exactly this purpose so I think the testcase shows a bug.  Unless the particular target cannot have global vars at address zero.

Would you mind opening a bugreport?

I'm not sure I follow. I've tested the original example with 6.0,
5.1, 4.9, 4.8.3, and 4.8.1. All of these eliminate the test with
-fno-delete-null-pointer-checks. Are you saying that's a bug? If
so, what version retains the test?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]