3 ms·

Yes I see that, I was not describing what the compiler should observe to work properly, I was describing the erroneous reasoning it was making prior to the fix.

• saagarjha 7y ago
  > I was describing the erroneous reasoning it was making prior to the fix. I should have written: non-nullness of 'node'. I think you're misinterpreting the error in the compiler's reasoning: unless I am misunderstanding you, it doesn't seem to match the comment I linked earlier. The reason -fno-delete-null-pointer-checks did not help is because it only kicks in when you use a NULL pointer in a way that is undefined, but that's not what's occurring here.
• jcranmer 7y ago
  > And TBH I'm starting to be more concerned by the fact that fno-omit-null-pointer-checks did not suppress that codegen bug than by its existence in the first place... -fno-omit-null-pointer-checks doesn't suppress it because it has nothing to do with it. -fno-omit-null-pointer-checks means "don't infer from the presence of *x that x is non-NULL." In this case, the non-nullity of x was inferred directly from the check "if (x != NULL)".