[LLVMdev] Adding a halting function attribute?

[Eric Schweitz]

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 9:32 AM, John Regehr <regehr at cs.utah.edu> wrote:

> > On reflection, perhaps this isn't so bad.  This really only matters when
> > the compiler is able to infer readnone/readonly, which typically doesn't
> > include cases with indirect calls.  Per #2, I think it could be handled
> > by making the GCC-style pure/const attributes imply both
> > readonly/readnone *and* halting.
>
> This sounds right to me.
>
> John
>
>
Isn't a noreturn attribute (i.e., not "halting") a property of the
control-flow whereas pure/const describe the class of effects of the
function?  Why merge these distinct properties?

--
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100512/c40283ad/attachment.html>