From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 17 09:32:23 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 7FCEF16A4CE; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phantom.cris.net (phantom.cris.net [212.110.130.74])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4C9F943D2D; Sat, 17 Jan 2004 09:32:20 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from ru@FreeBSD.org.ua)
Received: from phantom.cris.net (ru@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0HHWujm021909;
	Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:32:56 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from ru@FreeBSD.org.ua)
Received: (from ru@localhost)
	by phantom.cris.net (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0HHWtJn021904;
	Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:32:55 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from ru)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:32:55 +0200
From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>
To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>,
	Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>, Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.org>,
	Garrett Wollman <wollman@FreeBSD.org>,
	Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org>, hackers@FreeBSD.org
Message-ID: <20040117173255.GB21742@FreeBSD.org.ua>
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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="H1spWtNR+x+ondvy"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040117171928.GB38009@dragon.nuxi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
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: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:32:23 -0000


--H1spWtNR+x+ondvy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 09:19:28AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> 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"...
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
The code I've posted has obvious troubles.  It would take care
of the following fragment for -std=3Dc89 and be pure C99 for
-std=3Dc99,

void
foo(char * restrict fa)
{
}

but will break this for -std=3Dc89:

void
restrict(void)
{
}

We have a problem if we want to mix old C89 and new C99 code.


Cheers,
--=20
Ruslan Ermilov
FreeBSD committer
ru@FreeBSD.org

--H1spWtNR+x+ondvy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFACXHHUkv4P6juNwoRAh40AJ91MCs99R3UCpY4vQqW0F5CzsLzwQCfYFrU
qMB3pP/ecj1+xejgWyn1dOA=
=O5Xy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--H1spWtNR+x+ondvy--