From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 19 08:17:46 2004 Return-Path: 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 3233616A4F6; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D89843D3F; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0JGHKip004667; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0JGHJOP004665; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:17:19 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Harti Brandt Message-ID: <20040119161719.GB4587@dragon.nuxi.com> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Harti Brandt , Tim Kientzle , Garrett Wollman , hackers@freebsd.org, Ruslan Ermilov , Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Mike Barcroft 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040119143913.Y42652@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: Tim Kientzle cc: Garrett Wollman cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav cc: Mike Barcroft Subject: Re: __restrict__ vs __restrict ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@freebsd.org List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:17:46 -0000 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)