From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 19 05:41:32 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5244016A4D1; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:41:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de (mailhub.fokus.fraunhofer.de
	[193.174.154.14])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6E75143D31; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:41:29 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Received: from beagle (beagle [193.175.132.100])i0JDfRL28164;
	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:41:27 +0100 (MET)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:41:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <20040117171928.GB38009@dragon.nuxi.com>
Message-ID: <20040119143913.Y42652@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
References: <40088E75.5080908@acm.org> <20040117015809.GJ9410@FreeBSD.org.ua>
 <4008B3F9.6010903@acm.org> <20040117171928.GB38009@dragon.nuxi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
cc: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>
cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@freebsd.org>
cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@freebsd.org>
cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: __restrict__  vs __restrict ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 13:41:32 -0000

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, David O'Brien wrote:

DO>On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:03:05PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
DO>> >No, we should be using the __restrict as coded.  But I wonder why
DO>> >we can't just use "restrict"...
DO>>
DO>> Because that would really mess up any user program that used
DO>> 'restrict' as a variable or function name.  I think the
DO>> current approach is the best.
DO>
DO>Such code isn't portable to C99, which is still a goal of ours.  I like
DO>RU's suggestion, because it is straight C[99] code and not an
DO>abstraction.  I'll do a 'make world' test and see if we'd have trouble
DO>with RU's form.

What about third party code that reads cdefs.h and is pre-c99? It's
perfectly ok to use restrict as a name there.

harti
-- 
harti brandt,
http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private
brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org