Date:	Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:09:34 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: restrict
In-Reply-To:	<200004030951.LAA02851@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000403130522.27255B-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> > Does the standard actually *require* the prototypes to
> > include `restrict'?
> 
> That's my interpretation.

Yes, but is there anything in the standard, besides the prototypes it 
shows, that can back up this interpretation?

> Besides, why would they put the word there
> if it wasn't required?

The prototype in the standard is meant to document the function.  As 
such, it is perfectly possible to have `restrict' there, because it
explains that the function should behave in a manner compatible with that 
declaration.

But whether the header files supplied with the library must actually use 
`restrict' might be a different matter.

Compare this with `const': if string.h says this:

	size_t strlen (char *);

is it in violation of the standard?  I wonder.

- Raw text -