Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:41:26 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> Cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: __restrict__ vs __restrict ? Message-ID: <20040119143913.Y42652@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <20040117171928.GB38009@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <40088E75.5080908@acm.org> <20040117015809.GJ9410@FreeBSD.org.ua> <4008B3F9.6010903@acm.org> <20040117171928.GB38009@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040119143913.Y42652>