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 459D1385041B; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 18:32:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 459D1385041B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663439531;
	bh=UO/fmJR5+T6hdb246rNf636q6QF+hvIEmtX6x8COwWE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=hRxvNUis3wZK0sOxNGNXfD1RwEx9fPOPS2UCrFJ+El/1p0mFHvIbgxkxeWi/ap1oz
	 ImgvkrGndE8soqQoEGqGmADiom7S0suJfbv3VVZBKZp3QDXnUEqzeiDBNkUm3BIgCn
	 z71bWKfoA/WVqvS6+qMaCSrkHbn4rD0xxzS/ljGU=
From: "aldyh 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 18:32:10 +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: 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-sqXToocAQs@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 #11 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)

> > But wait a minute, is calling a non-const function from [[assume]] even
> > allowed?
>=20
> Yep, that's the tricky part.  Of course, as functions get more complicate=
d,
> 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 compi=
ler
> knows are const even if they aren't declared with the attribute.

I see.  Ok, so yeah...I'm sure we can work something out.  When y'all have a
prototype representable in the IL, we'd be happy to enhance ranger to handle
it.  Sounds like something very useful, particularly for floats-- without
exposing signaling whathaveyous.

Maybe Andrew has some further thoughts here?=