On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:41:51AM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > See the inb example. All fixes are pessimations for the code. People > > complained enough about the (in)ability of __builtin_constant_p to get > > it delayed to the backend, this is IMO just the same. > > > > I agree it is the same, however I have heard extremely little complaining > about __builtin_constant_p. I've also not heard any complaints other than > yours about this change -- most of the complaints I've heard have been > about the terribly brittle code it uncovered and is now getting fixed.
Given that I am often the first person to see breakage in random software, I'm not too surprised. So the real question would be -- why is this not just a warning? I don't think anyone (including me) would object to that, but it would make it possible to still use the feature when necessary / useful. Joerg _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
