Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> It looks like I was misremembering; I remember a proposal for a "pure"
> attribute in gcc, but it looks like the attribute used for functions with
> no memory references and no side effects is "const" (a la C++). I think
> "pure" was proposed for the somewhat relaxed version of that that allowed
> memory references but not side effects.
Are you sure? That sounds totally backwards to me.
Declaring a function "const" is a promise that it's not going
to change anything outside its call frame.
But a pure function, in the math sense, doesn't even look at
anything outside its call frame.
--
John Porter
Like music? Then you're gonna love this.
I was into these dudes before anybody.
Asked me to be the manager.
