This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, dann at ics dot uci dot edu, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jh at suse dot cz, john at feith dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:07:49 -0800
Subject: Re: Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]
References: <200203250554.AAA05644@caip.rutgers.edu> <20020325004601.A14556@redhat.com> <20020325210251.GE23331@codesourcery.com>

On Mon, Mar 25, 2002 at 01:02:51PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> However, for safety's sake, it is starting to sound like we need
> another attribute which indicates a const/pure function that does
> not necessarily return...

No, please.  Let's just loosen the definition and audit
the compiler for proper behaviour.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]
  - From: Zack Weinberg

References:
- Re: Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi
- Re: Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]
  - From: Zack Weinberg

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]