Re: [tree-ssa] dead const/pure/alloca call removal

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

| On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 07:21:30AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
| > 
| > [...]
| > 
| > | The implementation provides malloc; GCC is merely a part of the
| > | implementation.  We already assume a conforming library for many
| > | optimizations; glibc doesn't provide strlen either.
| > 
| > Sure, but isn't a tracing malloc a conforming implementation?
| 
| Now that's a good question.  I have no idea :)  Note that we wouldn't
| break it; some allocations would simply be missed, and they would be
| relatively uninteresting from the tracing perspective since they would
| have fairly simple lifetimes.

I'm not sure.  For example, it is not uncommon in C++ land to test
whether failure to allocate memory is ccorectly handled -- most of the
tests I've seen consists in allocating chunks of memory in a loop.

-- Gaby