Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.std.c Subject: Re: What is the point of restrict in fopen? Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 05:37:22 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 21 Message-ID: <86h6psrwu5.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20230524162836.172@kylheku.com> <86cz0mzemm.fsf@linuxsc.com> <9x2cnQDaqOkRtyf5nZ2dnZeNn_di4p2d@giganews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="25cc9caf93cbb682b63b59729477b86a"; logging-data="1184604"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oDsxbtXaSaV4tNsE5zHMP/QoZis90dbo=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:E7OaobIHLAkBOaYwPApnklBJ6T0= sha1:FdOp+TfNyE239quA1nmnWV/oLzs= Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6518 Jakob Bohm writes: > On 2023-07-20 19:17, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> writes: >> >>> I've noticed that both arguments of fopen are restrict-qualified. >> >> What I think you mean is that the arguments given in the prototype >> declaration in the C standard are qualified with the 'restrict' >> keyword. >> >> Note that this form of declaration has no effect on the semantics >> of the function. The function declaration, and its semantics, are >> just the same as if the uses of 'restrict' were removed. > > Note that Tim's critique or restrict in May 2023 is very similar > to the critique of the similar noalias proposal in messageid > <7753@alice.UUCP> [...] My comment wasn't a critique, just an observation.