From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 17 09:19:39 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 3362516A4CE; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:19:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E446F43D1F; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:19:36 -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 i0HHJTip038071;
	Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:19:29 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com)
Received: (from obrien@localhost)
	by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HHJSgE038070;
	Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:19:28 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from obrien)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:19:28 -0800
From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>
To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20040117171928.GB38009@dragon.nuxi.com>
Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org>,
	Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>,
	Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org>,
	Garrett Wollman <wollman@FreeBSD.org>,
	Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.org
References: <40088E75.5080908@acm.org> <20040117015809.GJ9410@FreeBSD.org.ua>
	<4008B3F9.6010903@acm.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4008B3F9.6010903@acm.org>
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: Garrett Wollman <wollman@FreeBSD.org>
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
cc: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@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
Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org
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: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:19:39 -0000

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.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)