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 04DD83853562; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:09:50 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 04DD83853562
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663416591;
	bh=Y+opnqE9fqhRfiJalQuAu9MDCei2KGQv8AmIseEAhNk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Kl1rKI2REZ5cfKpcASOX+IWIqaTZzoYIPh+kTBq5Vi2bEFzVFglFlLZ8TmUDwHyI2
	 QqeizA/1/cKfrhDmECpoAzF9IUWJaCuy29u4vUqxdyvLcLWPDFaKeP54THaDbaOkFJ
	 wnGAyOsFly87JX597GYSXD6RvCapasK+A2Zc9hYo=
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 12:09:50 +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: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-106654-4-pc7gTHAg4c@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

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-09-17
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #8 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7)
> Silly question, why can't you expand the [[assume]] construct into:
>=20
> if (x > 5)
>   __builtin_unreachable ();
>=20
> ...like we always have.  Then no changes are needed to ranger :).  Or does
> this have to do with the whole side-effect thing?

Exactly.  For expressions with no side-effects, we can do that.  For, say, a
call to a non-const function, we need to avoid actually emitting the call.=