Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:00:33 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: restrict
In-Reply-To: <200004021758.TAA26704@father.ludd.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000403110011.26246J-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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


On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Martin Str|mberg wrote:

> 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?

I don't know.  Does the standard actually *require* the prototypes to
include `restrict'?