From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 08:35:19
Rob Stewart wrote:
> In the (elided ;-) example, ++x has a side effect so while it
> doesn't affect whether __assume(false) is reached, the optimizer
> shouldn't elide the increment unless it can prove that the new
> value of x is not used. Are you suggesting that __assume(false)
> would override that?
Yes, I am. __assume( false ) asserts that this point is unreachable. Since
++x always completes, it follows that ++x is unreachable as well, so it can
be elided.