a question about const and pure functions.

[Daniel Berlin]

On Nov 11, 2004, at 8:57 AM, Roger Sayle wrote:




>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>
>
>> 4) eventually to allow some loops (if they can be proven to be finite)
>> rather than just looking for back edges in the cfg. We have this
>> analysis in the compiler, we should be allowed to use the info here.
>>
>>
>
> This is also good, but seems to clash with your hopes of moving
> pure/const analysis earlier.
>
>
The tree-profiling branch will soon have a CFG at the cgraph level, so 
this isn't really a problem for a given definition of "some
loops" :)

--Dan