On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Roland Mainz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Glenn Fowler <[email protected]> wrote: >> we will most likely handle "restrict" in a similar way to "const" >> to keep the code readable >> where >> all ast code will use "restrict" >> #ifdef magic in ast_common.h will do one of the following >> possibly augmented by probe info when nmake is used to build: >> (1) nothing -- "restrict" or its expansion will be seen by the >> compiler >> (2) #define restrict __restrict >> (3) #define restrict >> with (3) being the fallback position > > Ok... > ... can we do this for the next alpha, please (technically... without > consumers... it should not harm anything (currently) ... right ?) ?
Erm... ping! ... can we do this for the next alpha, please (just the infrastructure to minimise the risk... and then make step-by-step patches to convert the possible consumers to claim our 1.6-3.8% performance benefit (this is the average the clang people measured across all software they tested with+without |restrict|)) ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [email protected] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ ast-developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.research.att.com/mailman/listinfo/ast-developers
