Hi! gimple_goto_dest is is_gimple_val, so can be ADDR_EXPR (though just for bad testcases), and in that case we weren't walking it in some cases.
I've tried to reject ADDR_EXPRs in gimple_goto_dest, but that turned out to be much larger patch and still incomplete. Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk/4.8? 2013-08-15 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> PR tree-optimization/58164 * gimple.c (walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops): For visit_addr walk gimple_goto_dest of GIMPLE_GOTO. * gcc.c-torture/compile/pr58164.c: New test. --- gcc/gimple.c.jj 2013-05-13 09:44:53.000000000 +0200 +++ gcc/gimple.c 2013-08-15 15:22:06.745236769 +0200 @@ -4049,6 +4049,13 @@ walk_stmt_load_store_addr_ops (gimple st ret |= visit_addr (stmt, TREE_OPERAND (op, 0), data); } } + else if (visit_addr + && gimple_code (stmt) == GIMPLE_GOTO) + { + tree op = gimple_goto_dest (stmt); + if (TREE_CODE (op) == ADDR_EXPR) + ret |= visit_addr (stmt, TREE_OPERAND (op, 0), data); + } return ret; } --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr58164.c.jj 2013-08-15 15:24:04.117313781 +0200 +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/pr58164.c 2013-08-15 15:23:47.000000000 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +/* PR tree-optimization/58164 */ + +int +foo (void) +{ + int x = 0; + goto *&x; +} Jakub