https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487
--- Comment #17 from Daniel Berlin <dberlin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Not sure how i ended up on the CC list for this one, but i actually would disagree it would be better than nothing. Features that can only be made to work a small amount and are incapable of being improved tend to be the ones users complain about the most. In cases where you can't even get to 30% or 40%, let alone 80%, it's often better to do nothing. On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:20 PM egallager at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18487 > > --- Comment #16 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > > And then there is the case of endless loops in such functions (either > > unconditional, or ones the compiler is not able to detect), exit calls, both > > either directly in the const/pure function or in some function it calls. So > > in all, I'm afraid such a warning would diagnose only the most trivial > > cases. > > That would still be better than nothing. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are on the CC list for the bug.
