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: why are we not using const?

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>, gcc at gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:53:19 -0700
Subject: Re: why are we not using const?
References: <6c33472e0606270551i1d5abe04j9d6c9839219539e8@mail.gmail.com> <m3bqseprw2.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>

On Jun 27, 2006, at 7:58 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

We we do have numbers that support that claim for real programs, then
we have a bug in the optimizers :-)

Huh?

"Stupid" example where a const argument can change:
tree a;
int f(const tree b)
{
  TREE_CODE(a) = TREE_CODE (b) + 1;
  return TREE_CODE (b);
}

-- Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi

References:
- why are we not using const?
  - From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez
- Re: why are we not using const?
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

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