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 5C1B9382C62B; Sat, 17 Sep 2022 12:12:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5C1B9382C62B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663416763;
	bh=1JbECNFhiGLFYw60x+r0LBjHJt2IK/yFOTGcDhF5v48=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QU2atdhfQ3olA9pZoLvivkaH3wSt9oymEdEakNiTgaKL4UixQMfr5BydhACDTu8TY
	 OOvTkWC4YpeYxgHSLDHnDSjf5PF6dM1TmZ2U3qcmzMx7YAAdGE5pPdtqZ4c8q/7165
	 HMQRNQxo/hlEfg55b3GGLd3nVG8IAHbB6ulIWhoM=
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 12:12:42 +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-yPu5afYj0m@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 #9 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> (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 d=
oes
> > this have to do with the whole side-effect thing?
>=20
> 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.

So...could we keep doing what we're doing for non side-effect code, and onl=
y do
the outline function for side-effect stuff?  Or is that too much to ask?

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