From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <200004030951.LAA02851@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: restrict
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:51:58 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000403110011.26246J-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Apr 03, 2000 11:00:33 AM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
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

> 
> 
> 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'?

That's my interpretation. Besides, why would they put the word there
if it wasn't required?


Right,

							MartinS