Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: absence of max
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:53:15 -0800
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <ln8trz7a78.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <0e1db67d-0ab8-4971-a319-8aa66a40b873@googlegroups.com> <o1d8rg$pn3$1@dont-email.me> <c3e70455-c1f5-46ee-aa2e-0ab54c603f61@googlegroups.com> <o1f2js$7sr$1@dont-email.me> <cefcbabd-ddcd-4f87-ac64-c99c53a828e9@googlegroups.com> <436aadfe-20e5-4349-bdf4-9bac145b0d7e@googlegroups.com> <e22bbfbe-249b-44e8-806d-f29802be04c6@googlegroups.com> <o1hujs$md0$1@dont-email.me> <87oa0zi280.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1ii3h$pa$1@dont-email.me> <871sxvhw4i.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1jo1p$i5$1@dont-email.me> <ea7em7Fbq11U1@mid.individual.net> <o1mc22$bsv$1@dont-email.me> <87a8ch18kc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1mut8$gj8$1@dont-email.me> <874m2o22jy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o1ndni$bsd$1@dont-email.me> <4894f89e-1b6a-4a7e-97b5-e12c9734da41@googlegroups.com> <o1opij$803$1@dont-email.me> <8e947169-6c71-4977-b6fd-bb7a1185994b@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e9e90b81bc42428c034e25748a0d26e9"; logging-data="701"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WK87eIWoU77Tqd/QZ7MKR"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:TT4zCGwQq+OHMES/DuSBZ2qm4N8= sha1:wWzNHjb7YQXEizUeNmkiscQOobo=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:97831

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, December 1, 2016 at 3:14:24 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
>> Yes, if only C had a way to write something like:
>> 
>> void foo(int array1[restrict], int array2[restrict], int start, int end)
>> 
>> then the optimiser would be free to assume that array1 and array2 don't
>> overlap!
>> 
>> Oh wait, C /does/ have a way to write that.
>
> A search of C99 "restrict" revealed an example of that syntax, and a search
> of N1570 finds the same example, but I couldn't find anyplace in either
> standard that actually described its meaning.  What am I missing?

N1570 6.7.3p8 discusses it briefly.

N1570 6.7.3.1 is the "Formal definition of restrict".

Does your PDF viewer not have a search function?

> Also, there's no reason such meaning should only be available to parameters
> but I don't think that syntax would be allowable in any other context.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"