Thank you both for your quick replies. @Joseph, thank you for linking me to the other issue. If I understand correctly what the point is, would you then agree that the program main when calling foo2 has *defined* behavior? What surprises me is that *p and *q might be the same restricted pointer: the *xp* object itself is not declared as *int** *restrict* but as *int**.
By passing *xp* as argument to foo1, is the type of the object *xp* then implicitly converted to (or merely interpreted as) *int* restrict *(because of the argument type)*, i.e.* xp corresponds to the object *P *the standard refers to? int main() { int x = 0; int* xp = &x; int res = foo2(&xp, &xp); return 0; } --- @Richard, thank you for the alternative implementation. Is foo3 meant to be optimized by GCC currently (I didn't manage to get GCC13.2 to do it)? Or is it a hypothetical example that would allow GCC to optimize it? int foo3(int *restrict * p, int *restrict * q) { int a; *p = &a; **q = 11; **p = 12; return **q; } Kind regards, Ties Op di 13 feb 2024 om 15:29 schreef Joseph Myers <josmy...@redhat.com>: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Ties Klappe via Gcc wrote: > > > int foo2(int *restrict *p, int *restrict *q) > > { > > **p = 10; > > **q = 11; > > return **p; > > } > > In this case, *p and *q might be the same restricted pointer object. See > the more detailed explanation at > <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14192#c8>. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > josmy...@redhat.com > >