Hello Dave, I don't have write access to the repository, so it would be great if you could push it for me.
Thanks for your time, Federico On 2/9/26 6:07 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > On Sun, 2026-02-08 at 20:36 +0100, fedang wrote: >> Hello David, >> I merged the logic of your patch with my tests. >> >> Also tested on x86_64-linux once again. > Thanks; looks great. > > Do you want to push this, or do you want me to? > > Thanks > Dave > >> Thank you for the opportunity, >> Federico >> >> On 2/7/26 4:36 PM, David Malcolm wrote: >>> On Sat, 2026-02-07 at 00:37 +0100, Federico Angelilli wrote: >>> >>> Hi Federico >>> >>>> Previously the analyzer emitted a -Wanalyzer-null-dereference >>>> even >>>> when >>>> the target pointer's address space allowed accesses at address 0. >>>> >>>> This patch uses the targetm.addr_space.zero_address_valid hook to >>>> correctly ignore such cases. >>>> >>>> Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. >>> Thanks for filing the bug and creating the patch. >>> >>> As it happens, I also wrote a patch for this yesterday which >>> survived >>> my overnight testing, and I was about to push it when I saw your >>> email >>> :-) >>> >>> I'm attaching my patch for reference. >>> >>> I think I prefer the logic from my patch (having a subroutine for >>> the >>> test and using it in two places), but it looks like the testsuite >>> coverage from your patch is better than mine. >>> >>> Would you be able to have a go at merging the best parts of the two >>> patches and posting an updated version? Or would you prefer me to >>> do >>> that? (I don't mind either way, I just want to avoid more >>> duplicated >>> work) >>> >>> Thanks again for working on this. >>> Dave
