https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82776
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to amker from comment #4)
> Well, one decision needs to be made is whether such bound information should
> be covered by -faggressive-loop-optimizations. We already did this for
> undefined behavior of sign type and array bound. OTOH, this doesn't look
> like too aggressive since we already rely on undefined behavior for
> pointer/signed types in SCEV.
Given:
if (flag_aggressive_loop_optimizations)
infer_loop_bounds_from_undefined (loop);
I think it should be keyed on flag_aggressive_loop_optimizations.
E.g. we want to avoid something like that when sanitizing etc.
> Note I made change assuming non-wrap pointer all the time in r250765, but
> seems some kernel code depends on that, i.e, PR82694. We may need to revert
> the change and only assume non-wrap pointer when !flag_wrapv. Thanks.
IMHO the kernel should be fixed, in any case, that is something to discuss in
that PR, not here.
