Hello Paul,
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:35:38 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-01-20 02:55, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote:
> > I have difficulties of understanding the usefullness of such an
> > interface
>
> You're better off than I, as I'm still having difficulties knowing
> even what unsequenced and re
On 2025-01-20 02:55, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote:
Ah, so this is indeed quite another model, basically seeing a pointer
as a bit pattern that is the same.
Yes. It'd help if the standard made it clear what it considers to be
"the same" when it comes to [[reproducible]] and [[unsequenced]], using
wordi
Hello Paul,
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:42:27 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-01-20 07:48, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Why is setjmp an issue here at all? A jmp_buf cannot be used after
> > the function that invoked setjmp() has returned.
>
> True, but nothing in the standard prohibits the jmp_buf
On 2025-01-20 07:48, Bruno Haible wrote:
Why is setjmp an issue here at all? A jmp_buf cannot be used after
the function that invoked setjmp() has returned.
True, but nothing in the standard prohibits the jmp_buf from being used
multiple times before that return, so a call to setjmp can return
Hello Bruno,
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:48:43 +0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Dear Jₑₙₛ,
>
> > > By "extension", I assume you mean that [[unsequenced]] is
> > > intended to be looser than __attribute__((const)). That is, every
> > > const function is unsequenced, but the reverse is not true. This
> > >
Hello Bruno,
(please use this email address, here)
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:58:31 +0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Also noteworthy is that in section 1 of this paper, the motivation
> is to make REPRODUCIBLE equivalent to PURE, and UNSEQUENCED
> equivalent to CONST, but the proposed changes in section
n with UNSEQUENCED can depend on the state addressed by its
arguments, while a function with CONST cannot.
- A function with REPRODUCIBLE can affect state addressed by its arguments,
while a function with PURE cannot.
2025-01-19 Bruno Haible
attribute: Add note about o
