This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: a question about const and pure functions.
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:38:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: a question about const and pure functions.
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0411111116350.6451-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 13:23, Roger Sayle wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2004, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > I don't have an immediate plan to implement any of this, but I've
> > been thinking about it in the context of tree-ssa. I've read that
> > some folks would like there to be a clean handoff from the front ends
> > to the GENERIC parts of the compiler -- so I've been trying to think
> > of situations where this causes problems for java.
>
> Another possibility is to make the class initialization behaviour
> far more explicit in the gimple when handing off to the middle-end.
>
That's roughly what I had in mind. But I never thought it completely
through. It is in-line with the general direction of expanding the
language semantics in painful detail on the IL for the optimizers
benefit. There may be some some nasty side-effects in the size of the
IL, so we'd have to watch for that.
Diego.