This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: a question about const and pure functions.

From: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>
To: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
Cc: "Novillo, Diego" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Berlin, Daniel" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:45:38 -0800
Subject: Re: a question about const and pure functions.
References: <419266BE.9070509@naturalbridge.com>

On 10/11/2004, at 11:06 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:

Do we mark functions being const or pure (TREE_READONLY or DECL_IS_PURE) based on some external standard definition or are these defined any way that the gcc community feels is good?

There are backwards compatibility issues, of course, but they're not based on any particular standard.

I am in the process of moving the code that does this analysis so that it is done very early and at once for the entire compilation unit. There appear to be a few minor bugs in the code as well as a few missed opportinities. But before I was going to make any changes, I was wondering if there was any better standard of definition beyond what is defined in doc/extend.texi.

No, I don't think there's anything beyond the documentation. I think the documentation could do with being made more precise, but it's not very bad.

--
Geoff Keating <geoffk@apple.com>

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Follow-Ups:
- Re: a question about const and pure functions.
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck

References:
- a question about const and pure functions.
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck

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