On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Michael Matz wrote: > Yeah. But I continue to think that this reading is against the intent (or > should be). All the examples in the standard and rationale never say > anything about pointers to restricted objects and the problematic cases > one can construct with them, i.e. that one restricted pointer object might > have different names. That leads me to think that this aspect simply was > overlooked or thought to be irrelevant.
(Restricted) pointers to restricted objects are exactly what the sentence "Every access that modifies X shall be considered also to modify P, for the purposes of this subclause." is about. See my annotation in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2005-01/msg03394.html>. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
