From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 325E3382F959; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:34:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 325E3382F959 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1663414451; bh=jaRV0lzGavk0K+kSXbv51FbCGF8TqLyYrFN/Ym32F0Q=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=HK4fs0WdG5SaKDX+mNmxBg6RXo5CRfLBs3h+7ae29D5QVFRZ37HRmuuSGuPADQ6fv 7QXFDjkZqtNyDypDud2F9vFwRcYiahC9DkAWxZgWc6FQ7xwsQpHgO2l4FZL694+iRR zb8jfiFZJqj+KzEeZgX8l53VnliXNltttt3BzqgQ= From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/106654] [C++23] P1774 - Portable assumptions Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2022 11:34:10 +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: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106654 --- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez --- You could provide an API to access the different relations that hold in eit= her the outline function, or the .IFN_ASSUME construct. Then ranger could use = that API to access and record the different assertions. I'd hate for ranger to = have to deconstruct some functions for clues. Silly question, why can't you expand the [[assume]] construct into: if (x > 5) __builtin_unreachable (); ...like we always have. Then no changes are needed to ranger :). Or does = this have to do with the whole side-effect thing?=