On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 7:53 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Hm. I would not blame that on -fdelete-null-pointer-checks per se. > Rather the problem is what we were touching on before: the dubious > but standard-approved assumption that memcpy's arguments cannot be > null.
Isn't it both, together? That is, it's the combination of that assumption alongside -fdelete-null-pointer-checks's actual willingness to propagate the assumption. > I'd still leave -fdelete-null-pointer-checks > enabled, because it can make valid and useful optimizations in > other cases. Is there any evidence that that's true? I wouldn't assume that the gcc people exercised good judgement here. -- Peter Geoghegan
