[k4st]

> It would certainly not hurt performance to emit a compiler warning about deleting the if statement testing for signed overflow, or about optimizing away the possible null pointer dereference in Do().

I think that the nature of Clang and LLVM makes this kind of reporting non-trivial / non-obvious. Deletions of this form may manifest as a result of multiple independent optimizations being brought to bear, culminating in noticing a trivially always-taken, or never-taken branch. Thus, deletion is the just the last step of a process, and at that step, the original intent of the code (e.g. an overflow check) has been lost to time.

Attempts to recover that original intent are likely to fail. LLVM instructions may have source location information, but these are just file:line:column triples, not pointers to AST nodes, and so they lack actionability: you can't reliably go from a source location to an AST node. In general though, LLVM's modular architecture means that you can't assume the presence of an AST in the first place, as the optimization may be executed independent of Clang, e.g. via the `opt` command-line tool. This further implies that the pass may operate on a separate machine than the original LLVM IR was produced, meaning you can't trust that a referenced source file even exists. There's also the DWARF metadata, but that's just another minefield.

Perhaps there's a middle ground with `switch`, `select`, or `br` instructions in LLVM operating on `undef` values, though.