Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:19 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Cc: Mike Barcroft <mike@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: __restrict__ vs __restrict ? Message-ID: <20040119161719.GB4587@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <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> <20040119143913.Y42652@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: > 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. Its also perfectly OK to use 'exp' as a varible, but we've been getting rid of those because they are difficult to deal with. The same is true of older C++ code when new reserved words were added. Sometimes one has to move forward to the modern world. This is all congecture -- can you find one thing in /usr/ports that uses restrict as a symbol? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040119161719.GB4587>