From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <200004031135.NAA02963@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: restrict
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:35:33 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000403130522.27255B-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Apr 03, 2000 01:09:34 PM
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 Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Martin Stromberg wrote:
> 
> > > Does the standard actually *require* the prototypes to
> > > include `restrict'?
> > 
> > That's my interpretation.
> 
> Yes, but is there anything in the standard, besides the prototypes it 
> shows, that can back up this interpretation?
> 
> > Besides, why would they put the word there
> > if it wasn't required?
> 
> The prototype in the standard is meant to document the function.  As 
> such, it is perfectly possible to have `restrict' there, because it
> explains that the function should behave in a manner compatible with that 
> declaration.
> 
> But whether the header files supplied with the library must actually use 
> `restrict' might be a different matter.
> 
> Compare this with `const': if string.h says this:
> 
> 	size_t strlen (char *);
> 
> is it in violation of the standard?  I wonder.
> 

I say it is.


Right,

							MartinS