Re: [patch] 2 patches for PR tree-optimization/34648

[Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>]

> > > I think both patches are ok, but if anyone is concerned we can leave the
> > > changing of tree_could_throw_p to stage1.
> > Yes, I don't think now is the right time to make such a non-trivial change.
>
> No problem.

Anyway, it just seems to me that C/C++ could explicitly map const/pure 
to const+nothrow and pure+nothrow, by setting TREE_NOTHROW (*node) = 1, 
if they wish it to be so.  It might even be clearer, actually, to do it 
this way.

Paolo