--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-19 03:47 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Yes, char pointers are special. I'd like a non-special char pointer.
Actually it is not the char pointers which are special but access through a
character, there is a difference.
> I ofte
--- Comment #6 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-02-22 03:28 ---
Yes, char pointers are special. I'd like a non-special char pointer.
I often know that a char pointer will never alias non-char data, but can not
prove that it obeys all the complicated rules for __restrict.
For non-cha
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-21 10:17 ---
This needs more explanation. char pointers are special with and without
strict-aliasing.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #4 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-02-20 03:29 ---
There have been times when I could not prove to myself that __restrict would be
safe (it may have been), yet I knew that the char pointer would not alias with
non-char pointers.
(sorry to not have a nice chunk of code ha
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-20 02:04 ---
Can you give an example of where this is useful and why not instead improve GCC
for your code gen issues?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26372
--- Comment #2 from acahalan at gmail dot com 2006-02-19 21:40 ---
No, __restrict is too strong. It also, last I heard, couldn't be applied to a
type.
(if restrict was right, then using it on an int would be redundant)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26372
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-19 21:31 ---
__restrict it is called.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26372
