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

[Jason Merrill]

On 09 Nov 2003 07:21:30 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> 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?

AFAIK replacing malloc at all is nonconforming.  It just happens to work on
most Unix systems.

> | I disagree that the C standard's definition is too weak to allow
> | eliding of calls, as-if.  What problems do you see?
>
> The as-if would apply *if* GCC is the malloc implementation provider.
> Currently , it is not,

That doesn't matter.  GCC can assume the semantics described in the C
standard unless -fno-builtin.

Why do you see this as different from strlen?

Jason