https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
An implementation is free to do whatever it wants when it finds
invalid/undefined code. A quality implementation will also let the user know
about it so it can be fixed. An even better one will let the user
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
>
> --- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
> Removing invalid code not isn't wrong (as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
Removing invalid code not isn't wrong (as in non-conforming), but it's
decidedly unhelpful in avoiding the undefined behavior that doesn't necessarily
go away just because the invalid statement is gone. It
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94313
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
This is likely because points-to computes the result of the string functions,
for example in g1 it computes
s_5 = { NULL STRING }
and somehow ref_maybe_used_by_stmt_p computes false for *s and f(s).
