This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
a question about const and pure functions.
- From: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>
- To: GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Geoffrey Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>,"Novillo, Diego" <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,"Berlin, Daniel" <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:06:38 -0500
- Subject: a question about const and pure functions.
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?
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.
Kenny