https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104475
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The change improved the wording of the diagnostic by appending the note
indicating an object at zero address. It didn't mitigate the diagnostic which
as far as I analyzed is technically correct (but not very helpful).
An improvement for these diagnostics would be analyzer-style reporting of
the guarding conditions. Another possible improvement would be to somehow
keep a pointer to the symbolic base we equality-propagated from the
conditional so that we, for
if (!d)
if (enabled)
*d = 0;
can say the object pointed-to by 'd' when 'd' is nullptr is accessed here.
The IL currently just has a pointer constant and doesn't know that was
originally derived from 'd'.
