On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote:
> 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.
Well, I think you'd either ICE in the first check or can safely CSE the
second.
> If you're fine with unconditionally saying pure, that works for me.
I'd be ok with that.
> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
