On 18/03/2019 18:19, Robin Murphy wrote: > For the context bank reset, yes, I am assuming that no complier will > ever be perverse enough to detect that cfg is not written after the > NULL check and immediately reallocate it to XZR for no good reason. > I'd like to think that assumption is going to hold for the reasonable > scope of this particular workaround, though. I'm not sure I understand the above paragraph. In code such as: if (val == 0) foo(val); gcc's algorithm is likely to figure out that the code is equivalent to if (val == 0) foo(0) and perform constant-propagation, etc. Is that what we're talking about? Regards.
