https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78655
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
We currently get everything except the last tidbit.
a_1(D) int * VARYING
<bb 2> :
x_2 = a_1(D) == 0B;
a_3 = a_1(D) + 40;
return x_2;
When we see
a_3 = a_1(D) + 40;
Are we allowed to assume that a_1 is non-null, just like we do with *a_1? That
seems a little dicier
Because if that is a valid assumption, we can handle pointer_plus the same as
we do non-null pointer tracking of dereferences. That alone might handle it.
We could also consider recalculating x_2 at the return location if need be.
If we cant make that assumption, then there isn't much else to do here as the
rest of the PR is covered.
