https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
--- Comment #9 from Daniel Fruzynski ---
My bad, now I see my error.
What do you think about adding this new attribute to mark function arguments as
out only? I think it would allow to eliminate more dead or unnecessary code
(e.g. when value is
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Daniel Fruzynski from comment #7)
> void __attribute__((const)) func(int* i)
> {
> *i = 44;
> }
You get a warning because you marked this function const, which tells the
compiler it won't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
Daniel Fruzynski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzilla@poradnik-webmaster
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
Bug 31893 depends on bug 31094, which changed state.
Bug 31094 Summary: Support annotating function parameters as read-only and/or
non-escaping
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31094
What|Removed |Ad
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31893
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #6 from Manuel Lópe
--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 17:14 ---
There is no support for this in the middle-end anyway. Not even for Fortran.
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #4 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 16:50 ---
This would need to be a GCC extension and those need some high-level approval,
so still unconfirmed, however I am marking as waiting until a decision is
taken.
You should seek opinions/support in the gcc mailing list.
--- Comment #3 from madcoder at debian dot org 2007-05-11 09:32 ---
Subject: Re: Please provide an "inout" attribute for function parameters.
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 10:00:51PM -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-0
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-10 23:00 ---
What are you doing, writting Fortran code in C? :) (really I am serious about
this one too)
> It seems that even if the argument is declared const foo_t * gcc assumes the
> function will initialize the data, which i
--- Comment #1 from madcoder at debian dot org 2007-05-10 11:12 ---
It seems that even if the argument is declared const foo_t * gcc assumes the
function will initialize the data, which is rather ... erm... strange. Here is
the testcase:
=
10 matches
Mail list logo
