[LLVMdev] Adding a halting function attribute?

[Alistair Lynn]

Hello-

I don't believe noreturn implies non-halting - not returning does not imply not unwinding.

Alistair

On 12 May 2010, at 14:41, Eric Schweitz wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100512/7d3e5bf5/attachment.html>