Patch to detect invalid and missing ATTRIBUTE const/pure [take 2]

Fergus Henderson fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
Mon Mar 25 13:22:00 GMT 2002


On 25-Mar-2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> 2.  I would have thought that foo_p1/foo_c1/foo_p2/foo_c2 would all be
>     suggested candidates for either pure or const.  None of them are.
>     Is it not the case that a "pure" or "const" function may call
>     another respectively "pure" or "const" function?

Well, the issues with looping could also arise with recursion...

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list