From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200004021758.TAA26704@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: restrict
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000402085639.8988O-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "Apr 2, 2000 08:57:45 am"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 19:58:17 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> However, I'm not even sure it's a good idea to have those `restrict'
> keywords in the headers, or to compile the library with them being
> visible to the compiler: it might introduce bugs or unexpected
> misfeatures into user programs.  All we gain in return is some code
> efficiency.  Comments?

Can we leave them out and still be standard compliant?


Right,

							MartinS