Re: noalias in C9X?

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #4557

#4557

From: Larry Jones
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 1996 15:50

15 lines
1095 bytes

In article <4cfp2k$4gt@umbc9.umbc.edu>, schlein@umbc.edu (Jonas J. Schlein) writes:
> In question 11.28 the 'noalias' qualifier was mentioned as being introduced
> too late to make it into the standard. Also difficulty in giving it well
> defined behavior stood as an obstacle.
> 
> My question is whether or not this, or something similar will be in
> a future standard?

Yes -- restricted pointers provide most of the advantages of noalias
while being much easier to define.  There are papers available from
http://www.dmk.com/~dmk/index.html.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
In short, open revolt and exile is the only hope for change? -- Calvin

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4cgt0e$pt2@info1.sdrc.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sdrc.com!thor!scjones

References: <4cfp2k$4gt@umbc9.umbc.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sdrc.com!thor!scjones
From: larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: noalias in C9X?
Date: 4 Jan 1996 15:50:38 GMT
Organization: SDRC Engineering Services
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <4cgt0e$pt2@info1.sdrc.com>
References: <4cfp2k$4gt@umbc9.umbc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.sdrc.com
Originator: scjones@thor

Reply to Parent Message