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: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
Cc: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>,"Novillo, Diego" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:14:40 -0500
Subject: Re: a question about const and pure functions.
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411110627040.25993-100000@www.eyesopen.com>

On Nov 11, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:

4) eventually to allow some loops (if they can be proven to be finite)
rather than just looking for back edges in the cfg. We have this
analysis in the compiler, we should be allowed to use the info here.


This is also good, but seems to clash with your hopes of moving
pure/const analysis earlier.

The tree-profiling branch will soon have a CFG at the cgraph level, so this isn't really a problem for a given definition of "some loops" :)

--Dan

References:
- Re: a question about const and pure functions.
  - From: Roger Sayle

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