Re: So what Standard are we working off?

Richard Heathfield wrote:
Harald van D?k said:


Richard Heathfield wrote:

Mark F. Haigh said:


Richard Heathfield wrote:

<snip>

I think the part of the C community that cares about portability wants
a widely-implemented standard, which it already has. Until C99 becomes
as widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need
portability?

Come on, quit being so negative. Having everybody agree on "restrict"
now, for example, is better than a bunch of subtly incompatible type
aliasing optimization extensions later.

Not if it stops my program from compiling.

It shouldn't if you define restrict as an empty macro in C90 mode, or
otherwise hide it.


I have found that the best way to hide restrict is not to define it at all,
not to use it, not to even think about using it, except of course as a
perfectly normal identifier. As far as I'm concerned, it's in user
namespace, and the C standardeers have no business polluting that space.

If you use restrict as an identifier, you might run into trouble on a
POSIX system.

--
Ian Collins.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... a widely-implemented standard, which it already has. ... as widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need ... Having everybody agree on "restrict" ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... as widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need ... Having everybody agree on "restrict" ... meant a C99 program using "restrict" would not compile with a C90 ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: So what Standard are we working off?
    ... widespread as C90, why would anyone use it if they need portability? ... Having everybody agree on "restrict" ...
    (comp.lang.c)