From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-143346-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26565 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2008 15:36:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 26557 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2008 15:36:14 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:35:56 +0000
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Tue, 8 Jan 2008 15:35:53 +0000
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Mark Mendell'" <mendell@ca.ibm.com>, 	"'Mark Mitchell'" <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: <Andrew_Pinski@playstation.sony.com>, 	"'gcc'" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, 	"'Hans-Peter Nilsson'" <hp@bitrange.com>, 	"'Richard Guenther'" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>, 	<Russell_Olsen@playstation.sony.com>, 	<trevor_smigiel@playstation.sony.com>
References: <20071218000552.GV3656@playstation.sony.com>	 <20071221220630.Y67443@dair.pair.com> 	 <4772A350.6030907@codesourcery.com>	 <20080103233308.GD5853@playstation.sony.com> 	 <477F190B.2000807@codesourcery.com> <84fc9c000801050240l6918b59dpd519dea81ddd3ad@mail.gmail.com> <47812F74.3020905@codesourcery.com> <OFAFCA915C.26EC5659-ON852573C9.00745C20-852573C9.0074BBD2@ca.ibm.com>
Subject: RE: __builtin_expect for indirect function calls
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:36:00 -0000
Message-ID: <003601c8520c$278d8390$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <OFAFCA915C.26EC5659-ON852573C9.00745C20-852573C9.0074BBD2@ca.ibm.com>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2

On 07 January 2008 21:15, Mark Mendell wrote:

> A question was raised:  Are side effects in the second parameter guaranteed
> to be executed?  Is it valid for a compiler to ignore any side effects?

  That perked up my curiosity:

"  The value of C must be a compile-time constant.  "

  Can a compile-time constant have run-time side-effects?  I couldn't think up
an example off the top of my head...

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....