On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 09:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
>
>>> I wondered if we'd get sane backtraces and what not, if the optimizer
>>> thought such functions never barfed.
>>
>>
>> Well, I
On 05/09/2017 09:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
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.
Do
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 05/09/2017 09:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
>
>> Ok, but ... are they not "pure" enough? That is, do we really care to
>> preserve
>> the checking side-effect for example when
On 05/09/2017 09:19 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell 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
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:01 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Hi,
> For name-lookup cleanup I introduced some accessors that are pure functions
> when we're not checking. I noticed we already had a couple of them, so
> introduced an ATTRIBUTE_NTC_PURE define. It avoid #ifndefs and stray
> semicolons.
Hi,
For name-lookup cleanup I introduced some accessors that are pure
functions when we're not checking. I noticed we already had a couple of
them, so introduced an ATTRIBUTE_NTC_PURE define. It avoid #ifndefs and
stray semicolons.
ok?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
2017-05-09 Nathan Sidwell
