From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 052A53986436; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:29:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 052A53986436
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663417752;
	bh=KItpy+2Y7zR+cMRtBAjGSxjL3Dd02H7MauPnAXB0HQo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=uYFiBsvsmupXO5Xq3RwHI4JBFygMvmxfWNkg9VzExA4NrmH3YW/gP3Mw6U42HgUsX
	 6KLvmvHcRNKKplMjPwOAGCEB+COijF+cZ7xuZ5cxYECDLsPByAjRFRCYtp8gKdLfT9
	 mlvIBglcrTGfFOdttA1BuKYj+srOtkxV+unLHSoU=
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
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106654-4-KTesUvqsgw@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106654

--- 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 o=
nly
> do the outline function for side-effect stuff?  Or is that too much to as=
k?

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 see=
ms
entirely reasonable to start with calls to functions that the compiler knows
are const even if they aren't declared with the attribute.=