Re: Restrict mangling.

[Mark Mitchell <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> "Coleen" == Coleen Phillimore <coleen@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    Coleen> There's a CV-qualifier mangling for 'restrict', but
    Coleen> restrict doesn't mean anything unless it applies to the
    Coleen> pointer itself (not what is pointed to).  MS and g++ from
    Coleen> what I can tell do not overload on the basis of restrict.
    Coleen> Does it make sense to add to the mangling?

Can't you have:

  void f (int *restrict*);

I.e., a pointer to a restricted pointer?  And isn't that different
than:

  void f (int **);

just as

  void f (int *const*);

is different?
 
--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com