[Bug default/30048] incorrect qualifiers within compound types

["gprocida at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30048

--- Comment #3 from gprocida at google dot com ---
Function prototypes that only differ in restrict are compatible according to
the standard.

This means that foo.c containing a declaration of f with restrict and foo.h
containing one without restrict is legal.

The type exposed to users may or may not contain restrict ("not", in the case
above). Tooling such as abidw could warn about this.

However, the C language itself makes it clear that qualifiers on function
parameter types only have an effect on the implementation, not the interface.

I'm in the camp that we should just discard them all. I don't think patches for
Linux that try to drop or add const in various places where this discrepancy
already exists would be well received by kernel maintainers.

Dropping them means dropping restrict almost everywhere. I suppose restrict
could appear in standalone function types... but that is even less useful.

For the STG tool, I'm in fact proposing dropping qualifiers on function
parameter types and return types and dropping restrict unconditionally.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.