From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1191 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 19:06:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1177 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 19:06:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO commerce-01.cilia.org) (65.174.6.28) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 19:06:42 -0000 Received: from [192.168.1.109] (ool-4357e295.dyn.optonline.net [67.87.226.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by commerce-01.cilia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9ED6406028; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:06:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <419266BE.9070509@naturalbridge.com> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:14:00 -0000 From: Kenneth Zadeck User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040906 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: GCC Mailing List , Geoffrey Keating , "Novillo, Diego" , "Berlin, Daniel" Subject: a question about const and pure functions. X-Enigmail-Version: 0.86.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00401.txt.bz2 Do we mark functions being const or pure (TREE_READONLY or DECL_IS_PURE) based on some external standard definition or are these defined any way that the gcc community feels is good? I am in the process of moving the code that does this analysis so that it is done very early and at once for the entire compilation unit. There appear to be a few minor bugs in the code as well as a few missed opportinities. But before I was going to make any changes, I was wondering if there was any better standard of definition beyond what is defined in doc/extend.texi. Kenny