Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #105254
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Double-underline-itis |
| Date | 2017-03-01 15:29 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <87wpc9m2w5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <o951ti$ch6$1@dont-email.me> <87tw7doktz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o96c5h$l84$1@dont-email.me> <878topnpqm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <o96gp9$d8n$1@dont-email.me> |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 01/03/2017 12:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> You mean that >>> >>> #define restrict >>> >>> won't work because someone could have.... >>> >>> I don't even understand the problem. These are system headers, >>> designed to work with a particular implementation, so will know >>> whether 'restrict' is supported or not. What's the point of such a >>> keyword being introduced if it then goes onto use something else? >> >> Many implementations support various C standards. As I said, you could >> include a different header for C90, C99 and so on but it's easier to >> #define __restrict__ to either nothing or restrict depending on the >> language version. > > I've just come across __signed__! How many C systems don't support > 'signed'? Why do you assume is about support? My first reaction when I see something like this that I don't understand is that it's probably a my fault. Yes, there is often junk in these files but there is often stuff I can't be sure about because it's solving a problem I've not yet grasped. <snip> -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Double-underline-itis BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 23:44 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-28 15:54 -0800
Re: Double-underline-itis Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 01:19 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 09:11 +0100
Re: Double-underline-itis BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-01 11:45 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 12:30 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-01 13:04 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 15:29 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-03-01 15:47 +0000
Re: Double-underline-itis Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 09:30 -0800
Re: Double-underline-itis supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 10:14 -0800
Re: Double-underline-itis Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 18:45 -0700
csiph-web