Hi Dave, On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 06:48:51PM GMT, David Malcolm wrote: > > restrict, as of the formal definition of ISO C is useless crap. The > > more I read it, the more I agree. > > Please note that "useless crap" was your wording, not mine. Yup. :) > > > > > restrict, as of what -Wrestrict warns about, seems a reasonable > > thing. > > > > How about a [[gnu::restrict()]] attribute, similar to > > [[gnu::access()]], > > which is simpler than the qualifier? Since restrict is only > > meaningful > > in function boundaries, it would make sense to have a function > > attribute. We don't want a qualifier that must follow discarding > > rules. > > If it doesn't have the same meaning as "restrict" then perhaps call the > proposed attribute something other than "restrict"? Yup, I was thinking that maybe noalias is a better name. > > That said, I don't have strong opinions on any of this, except to note > that I have more than enough *other* work on improvements to GCC's > static analyzer and usability to keep me busy, so getting sucked into > discussion/implementation on 'restrict' is something I want to avoid, > and -Wanalyzer-overlapping-buffers is getting the job done for me at > the moment. > > [...snip...] > > Hope this is constructive; sorry again if I missed anything due to only > skimming the thread It is. I don't want you to work on this if you don't have time or interest. Just having the idea floating aroud, and if somebody finds time to have a look at it in the next decade, maybe try it. :-) Does that make sense? Cheers, Alex > > Dave > > -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
