Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/10] Add the __restrict__ keyword

[Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsay1.demon.co.uk>]

On 07/08/14 04:04, Christopher Li wrote:
> Send again to the list with plain text mode.
> 
>> No, __restrict__ is only applied to various pointer types in the MinGW
>> header files (see below). So, I agree that validation/reserved.c is not
>> exactly representative of the actual use of __restrict__ (or *any* of the
>> keywords come to that), but that does at least provide a minimal test.
> 
> 
> Let me clarify. I want to have some regression test cover your usage case.
> e.g. If I rewrite some part of sparse and breaks __restrict__ but did not break
> __restrict, I will have not way of knowing it. So please submit corresponding
> test case.

Yep, version 2 of patch coming soon.

> __restrict__ does not seem like part of the stander C. BTW, did you try
> to use gcc -E to find out if __restrict__ expand to any thing like "__restrict"?

Yes, the header is using the keyword __restrict__. (I have found that headers
tend to use __restrict if they are using macros).

>> Having said that, I think I see two tests included for the array declaration
>> usage: abstract-array-declarator-static.c and restrict-array.c.
>>
> I don't see it cover the __restrict__ case as far as I can tell.

Yes, I didn't get that you were talking specifically about __restrict__,
rather than any one of 'restrict', '__restrict' or '__restrict__'.

> Also, do you have run into the case that "__restrict__" was use in abstract
> array? None of your grep example show usage in the array. Your patch seems
> suggest that is possible.

They are very rare in the wild! :-D

The only examples I have come across for real are 'posix_spawn()' (see
<spawn.h>) and 'regexec()' (<regex.h>).

ATB,
Ramsay Jones