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
