Hello Jerker,
* Jerker Bäck wrote on Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 03:36:32PM CEST:
Well, maybe you're right. I will be using the MS implementation of restrict
and see if I run into problems. There could be a risk of wrong optimization
- we'll see.
I would doubt that MSVC does wrong optimizations
Hello Ralf,
I seem to have a habit of forgetting to add the group
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.general/7628.
Ah, I see where you got this from.
Well, maybe you're right. I will be using the MS implementation of restrict
and see if I run into problems. There could be a
Hello Noah,
As Ralf said, `AC_C_RESTRICT' supports your compiler precisely as
intended:
it
defines away the `restrict' keyword, which your compiler implements
incorrectly
No, I'm not so sure about that. Indeed, I'm convinced the compiler
implements the keyword exactly as intended.
Hello Jerker,
FYI, I've Cc:ed the list again.
* Jerker Bäck wrote on Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 04:34:56PM CEST:
You would have a case with this first issue if you could prove that
defining away `restrict' is a problem with MSVC.
No, it should not cause any problem.
OK, good. So this
Hello Ralf,
You would have a case with this first issue if you could prove that
defining away `restrict' is a problem with MSVC.
No, it should not cause any problem.
Second, a claim that MSVC fully implements restrict as conforming to
C99, is wrong, we've gone through this before. You
Hello Erik,
* Jerker Bäck wrote on Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 03:28:33PM CEST:
The MS compiler fails the test for the __restrict keyword
Like this:
typedef int * int_ptr;
int foo (int_ptr __restrict ip) // C2219: syntax error
But this works OK:
typedef int * __restrict
