On 05/09/2017 09:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote:
Ok, but ... are they not "pure" enough? That is, do we really care to preserve
the checking side-effect for example when doing
tree_fits_uhwi (t);
(result unused)?
I wondered about that. More specifically:
if (tree_fits_uhwi (t)) { .... bool fits = tree_fits_uhwi (t) ...}
I wondered if we'd get sane backtraces and what not, if the optimizer
thought such functions never barfed.
If you're fine with unconditionally saying pure, that works for me.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
