https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57612
--- Comment #4 from Tom Tromey <tromey at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to H. Peter Anvin from comment #2) > I would like to second this request, however, I would like to request that > it issues a warning rather than an error. It can always be promoted to an > error via -Werror= or the equivalent pragma. What's the use case for this? It seems simpler to just not use this macro when you don't want the effect. (In reply to felix from comment #3) > Overlaps bug 6906. Under that ticket, I proposed adding a built-in that > simply returns whether or not a given expression has side effects, simply by > exposing TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS(). This seems the same to me, in that __builtin_assert_no_side_effects could, I think, just be a static_assert using your builtin.
