On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:04 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100 > > From: Pascal Stumpf <pascal.stu...@cubes.de> > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:26:42 +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:00:44PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:41:45 +0100 (CET), Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The s/restrict/__restrict/g in cstdio shouldn't be necessary. > > > > > > > > Apparently, clang++ interprets "restrict" as parameter name, i.e.: > > > > > > > > attr.cc:1:50: error: redefinition of parameter 'restrict' > > > > extern "C" int foo(const char * restrict, char * restrict, ...) > > > > ^ > > > > attr.cc:1:33: note: previous declaration is here > > > > extern "C" int foo(const char * restrict, char * restrict, ...) > > > > ^ > > > > > > > > This might indeed be a bug, but I'd have to read the C++ standard to be > > > > sure. In pure C, clang doesn't complain. > > > > > > I'm not that surprised. restrict is C99. It's not part of C++98. > > > > > > Googling for restrict and C++ show various bug-reports explicitly stating > tha > > > t > > > library headers should probably adapt. > > > > > > I don't have access to C++ 2011 yet, but from n3242, it seems that it doe > s > > > now refer to C99 instead of C89, so restrict is probably leggit in C++201 > 1. > > > > > > So it looks to me like clang in C++98 mode is totally right to not recogn > ize > > > restrict as a keyword! > > > > Yes, you're right. And clang++ -std=c++0x does recognise restrict as a > > keyword. cstdio should be adapted (and gcc 4.6 does indeed have > > __restrict over restrict). > > Still worth checking if only removing the XXX_CHECK defines and > leaving the XXX_DYNAMIC defines helps.
Yes, it does. :) Thanks!
