------- Comment #3 from zadeck at naturalbridge dot com 2007-11-05 22:16 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] GCC generates wrong code for infinitely recursive functions
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-05 21:38 > ------- > It seems to me that a recursive function can never be safely treated as > const/pure. In fact, any function in an SCC in the call graph could result in > an endless loop and is therefore not const/pure. I'm assuming here that > hanging > in an infinite loop is a "side-effect", and I understand this is a debatable > assumption. > > > I have never been happy with how the "edge" cases of programs that are designed to do undefined behavior are used to define what is correct and what is not correct for well defined programs. So i am unconvinced by steven's argument. If someone either can turn this into a program that gets the wrong answer on a program that has a defined behavior with a language that gcc supports, then i will take this bug seriously. Kenny -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33826 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
