On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 09:19:28AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:03:05PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote: > > >No, we should be using the __restrict as coded. But I wonder why > > >we can't just use "restrict"... > > > > Because that would really mess up any user program that used > > 'restrict' as a variable or function name. I think the > > current approach is the best. > > Such code isn't portable to C99, which is still a goal of ours. I like > RU's suggestion, because it is straight C[99] code and not an > abstraction. I'll do a 'make world' test and see if we'd have trouble > with RU's form. > The code I've posted has obvious troubles. It would take care of the following fragment for -std=c89 and be pure C99 for -std=c99,
void foo(char * restrict fa) { } but will break this for -std=c89: void restrict(void) { } We have a problem if we want to mix old C89 and new C99 code. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov FreeBSD committer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature