public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/19828] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:23:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050218161623.32299.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050208190328.19828.pinskia@gcc.gnu.org>


------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-02-18 16:16 -------
OK, I agree that definition of ``pure'' needs to be changed in order to be 
useful (and to match the expectations); obviously, any function that is not 
total does not match the current definition.

What I find somewhat troublesome is that the "upgraded" definition of pure puts 
some of obligation on user of the function, rather than function itself.  The 
definition matching the expected semantics would need to be something like
"Pure function is guaranteed to be always called in such a way that it has no
side effects."

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19828


  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-02-18 16:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-02-09  5:38 [Bug tree-optimization/19828] New: " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-09  5:54 ` [Bug tree-optimization/19828] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-09  6:11 ` ian at airs dot com
2005-02-09  6:27 ` drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-09  6:37 ` drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-09  6:43 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-09 13:05 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-10 17:43 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-12 19:16 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-14  5:57 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-14  6:05 ` drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-14  7:38 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2005-02-14  8:18 ` drow at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-14  8:52 ` ian at airs dot com
2005-02-14  9:12 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2005-02-18 21:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-18 21:23 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org [this message]
2005-02-19 18:07 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-19 18:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 22:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050218161623.32299.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).