On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 11:14 -0800, Vadim Lobanov wrote:
[cut]
quoted text
> Second, even if const did have stronger semantics that forbade the value =
of x=20
quoted text
> from being modified during execution of foo, the compiler still could not=
=20
quoted text
> reorder the two function calls, before it cannot assume that the two=20
> functions (in their internal implementations) do not touch some other,=20
> unknown to this code, global variable.

This is why GCC has the pure and const function attributes.  These
attributes are more powerful than the "const" keyword, and do allow
optimizations with assumptions about global state.
--=20
Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>