> Am 13.02.2024 um 16:27 schrieb Ties Klappe via Gcc :
>
> 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?
>
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024, Ties Klappe via Gcc wrote:
> 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?
I think that's
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:
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
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 2:02 PM Ties Klappe via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have two questions related to nested restrict pointers.
> GCC 13.02 with optimization level 3 optimizes the function *foo1* to simply
> return 10.
>
> int foo1(int *restrict *restrict p, int *restrict *restrict q)
> {
>
Hi,
I have two questions related to nested restrict pointers.
GCC 13.02 with optimization level 3 optimizes the function *foo1* to simply
return 10.
int foo1(int *restrict *restrict p, int *restrict *restrict q)
{
**p = 10;
**q = 11;
return **p;
}
I am curious why the function
