__restrict__ vs __restrict ?

[David O'Brien]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:41:26PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, David O'Brien wrote:
> 
> DO>On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 08:03:05PM -0800, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> DO>> >No, we should be using the __restrict as coded.  But I wonder why
> DO>> >we can't just use "restrict"...
> DO>>
> DO>> Because that would really mess up any user program that used
> DO>> 'restrict' as a variable or function name.  I think the
> DO>> current approach is the best.
> DO>
> DO>Such code isn't portable to C99, which is still a goal of ours.  I like
> DO>RU's suggestion, because it is straight C[99] code and not an
> DO>abstraction.  I'll do a 'make world' test and see if we'd have trouble
> DO>with RU's form.
> 
> What about third party code that reads cdefs.h and is pre-c99? It's
> perfectly ok to use restrict as a name there.

Its also perfectly OK to use 'exp' as a varible, but we've been getting
rid of those because they are difficult to deal with.  The same is true
of older C++ code when new reserved words were added.  Sometimes one has
to move forward to the modern world.  This is all congecture -- can you
find one thing in /usr/ports that uses restrict as a symbol?

-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)