Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #103538

Re: Using fread function

Show key headers only | View raw

supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 7:40:00 AM UTC-6, james...@verizon.net wrote:
>> It's rather peculiar that, like function parameter names, qualifiers
>> on parameters in a non-defining prototype are permitted but
>> meaningless. I believe that they were permitted, so that the same
>> prototype could be used for the declaration and the
>> definition. However, because they are meaningless, it's not mandatory
>> for the declaration and the definition to have prototypes that match
>> in those ways. It could have been mandatory; the standard goes out of
>> it's way to make it not mandatory, so that was clearly deliberate.
> 
> I also find it peculiar that the Standard doesn't require that
> implementations do anything useful with qualifiers like "restrict" and
> "register" but requires that even implementations where they serve no
> purpose must still go through the effort of validating them.  In cases
> where many or all implementations' natural behavior in the absence of a
> qualifier would match the required behavior with the qualifier, but 
> either:
>
>   (1) the qualifier could allow implementations to generate more efficient
>       code, or
>
>   (2) the qualifier could make the code usable on platforms that were
>       capable of supporting the behavior at some cost but didn't do so by
>       default
>
> allowing implementations that naturally support the required behavior to
> "support" the qualifier by simply it would minimize the burden the qualifier
> would place upon implementations.

I think you accidentally a word.  Did you mean "by simply *ignoring*
it"?  If so, what exactly do you mean by that?

Are you suggesting that an implementation that doesn't do anything
useful with "restrict" should be able to ignore it altogether, so that

    int n = restrict 42;

would be quietly treated as a valid declaration?  Or that an
implementation that ignores register should allow the address of a
register-qualified object to be taken?

If so, why?

If I write code that uses "register" or "restrict", I want my compiler
to check my code for validity, whether they have any semantic impact or
not.

-- 
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"

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Using fread function janus <emekamicro@gmail.com> - 2017-01-29 10:07 -0800
  Re: Using fread function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-01-29 14:31 -0500
    Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-30 08:03 -0800
    Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 13:59 -0800
      Re: Using fread function jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-05 11:40 -0800
        Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 22:04 -0800
          Re: Using fread function jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-09 05:39 -0800
            Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 07:47 -0800
              Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 09:19 -0800
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 09:55 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-09 12:10 -0800
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-09 13:01 -0800
              Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 09:36 -0800
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-12 10:52 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 21:19 -0800
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 09:35 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 09:52 -0800
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 11:15 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 11:45 -0800
                Re: Using fread function "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-20 15:38 -0500
                Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 12:12 -0800
                Re: Using fread function jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 10:37 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 05:04 -0800
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 07:58 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 11:48 -0800
                Re: Using fread function jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 13:44 -0800
                Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 13:12 -0700
                Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-17 13:50 -0700
            Re: Using fread function Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-12 09:31 -0800
  Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-29 13:14 -0800
  Re: Using fread function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-30 08:18 -0800
    Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-30 08:44 -0800
    Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 11:58 -0800
      Re: Using fread function Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-01-30 13:05 -0800
        Re: Using fread function supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-01-30 13:39 -0800
        Re: Using fread function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-01-30 13:57 -0800

csiph-web