From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9adfbb907494972e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Johnston <skj@ACM.ORG>
Subject: Re: Ada to C/C++ translator needed
Date: 1996/10/02
Message-ID: <01BBB03F.7291B300@idc213.rb.icl.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 186664039
sender: Ada programming language <INFO-ADA@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU>
comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> You are wrong.  Of *course* I doubt it, and so does anyone who understands
> how compilers work.  Compilers have to respect the semantics of the
> languages they compile.  They cannot take shortcuts that might produce
> incorrect results.  Until the 'restrict' keyword is a standard part of C,
> which it soon will be, but currently isn't, a C compiler will not be
> *allowed* to pull the kinds of tricks that the Fortran compiler did in
> this example.

"restrict" what is this new keyword, where can one find out about this!