------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-18 16:16 ------- OK, I agree that definition of ``pure'' needs to be changed in order to be useful (and to match the expectations); obviously, any function that is not total does not match the current definition.
What I find somewhat troublesome is that the "upgraded" definition of pure puts some of obligation on user of the function, rather than function itself. The definition matching the expected semantics would need to be something like "Pure function is guaranteed to be always called in such a way that it has no side effects." -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19828
