On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the behavior
of function calls so that optimizers can be more aggressive at call
sites. Currently, GCC supports the notion of pure/impure,
const/non-const, but that is not enough for variou
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/29/08 1:31 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>
>
> > Such a facility can have other uses, particularly for static analysis,
> > by allowing simple preconditions and postconditions to be specified.
> > For example:
> >
> > * a retur
On 4/29/08 1:31 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
Such a facility can have other uses, particularly for static analysis,
by allowing simple preconditions and postconditions to be specified.
For example:
* a returned pointer is guaranteed to be non-null.
* a supplied pointer is always dereferenced.
* a suppli
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 03:04:56PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> [ Apologies if this comes out twice. I posted this message last week,
>but I think it was rejected because of a .pdf attachment. ]
>
> We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the behavior
> of function calls
Diego Novillo wrote:
We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the behavior
of function calls so that optimizers can be more aggressive at call
sites. Currently, GCC supports the notion of pure/impure,
const/non-const, but that is not enough for various cases.
Fortran support
On Apr 28, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
[ Apologies if this comes out twice. I posted this message last week,
but I think it was rejected because of a .pdf attachment. ]
We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the
behavior
of function calls so that optimize
Diego Novillo wrote:
[ Apologies if this comes out twice. I posted this message last week,
but I think it was rejected because of a .pdf attachment. ]
We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the behavior
of function calls so that optimizers can be more aggressive at call
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ Apologies if this comes out twice. I posted this message last week,
>but I think it was rejected because of a .pdf attachment. ]
>
> We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the behavior
> of fun
