https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85315
--- Comment #9 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #8) > > I asked Peter about that yesterday. The access to *p in your example is > > still > > meant to be undefined even under the proposed provenance rules. Here's his > > Even with -fno-provenance? With -fno-provenance the access would be valid under the proposed rules. > I think for the compiler "unspecified" works as well - we can still > unconditionally optimize it to return false, correct? Correct.