On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 09:03:07AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 2/16/19 12:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Both the C and C++ standard guarantee that the argc argument to main is
> > non-negative, the following patch sets (or adjusts) the corresponding
> > SSA_NAME_RANGE_INFO. While main is just one, with IPA VRP it can also
> > propagate etc. I had to change one testcase because it started optimizing
> > it better (the test has been folded away), so no sinking was done.
> >
> > Bootstrapped/regtested on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, ok for trunk?
> >
> > 2019-02-16 Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/89350
> > * gimple-ssa-evrp.c: Include tree-dfa.h and langhooks.h.
> > (maybe_set_main_argc_range): New function.
> > (execute_early_vrp): Call it.
> >
> > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp122.c: New test.
> > * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-3.c (main): Rename to ...
> > (bar): ... this.
> My recollection is this was somewhat controversial WRT standards
> interpretation. Additionally, it's just not clear how often this will
> help in the real world and Martin adjusted compute_objsize and the
> restrict pass to avoid the false positive.
>
> Do we want to continue with this patch independently or not? My
> inclination would be no.
I wanted to follow-up on this and restrict it to for now to C++ where it is
non-controversial. Would be of course nice if the C WG discusses it too and
clarifies if needed, I agree the wording isn't 100% clear and the
requirement shouldn't be on whatever use does with that parameter inside of
main, but should be a contract on when main is called and if user decides to
call main multiple times in C, that contract should not be violated even
during the subsequent calls.
Jakub
