From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23412 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2002 16:29:48 -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 23364 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2002 16:29:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nondot.org) (64.5.103.85) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2002 16:29:30 -0000 Received: by nondot.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id E237C11883; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:26:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nondot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDFAA1183E; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:26:37 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:34:00 -0000 From: Chris Lattner To: Robert Dewar Cc: Subject: Re: pure and const functions In-Reply-To: <20020429162319.C2341F29F3@nile.gnat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01558.txt.bz2 > I actually think you *do* agree with me. What I said was that it was in I now agree that I agree with you. :) I think that: > 2. Define what the functional effect of declarting something pure is ... is easiest, and should probably be made especially clear in the documentation, because it is what impacts the user. The problem is that it has to be updated as new transformations are added... > 1. Define what pure means semantically This needs to be well understood by GCC developers that are making the new transformations... but it would certainly be nice to have. Unfortunately it's kind of hard to pin down, your sqrt example is a good example of why. :) -Chris http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/os/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/