public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106654] [C++23] P1774 - Portable assumptions
Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:29:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-106654-4-KTesUvqsgw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-106654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106654

--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #9)
> So...could we keep doing what we're doing for non side-effect code, and only
> do the outline function for side-effect stuff?  Or is that too much to ask?

Yes, that's what Jakub proposed in comment #4.

> But wait a minute, is calling a non-const function from [[assume]] even
> allowed?

Yep, that's the tricky part.  Of course, as functions get more complicated, the
compiler being able to do anything useful with it gets less likely.  It seems
entirely reasonable to start with calls to functions that the compiler knows
are const even if they aren't declared with the attribute.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-09-17 12:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-16 17:20 [Bug c++/106654] New: " mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14  9:52 ` [Bug c++/106654] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 11:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 11:26 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 11:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-16  9:20 ` pilarlatiesa at gmail dot com
2022-09-16 16:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 11:34 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 12:09 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 12:12 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-17 12:29 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-09-17 18:32 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-21 17:49 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-06  7:01 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-07 14:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-08 10:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-18  8:40 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-20  0:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-20 19:43 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-19  9:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-28 22:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.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=bug-106654-4-KTesUvqsgw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).