Issue 0289: Function prototype with [restrict]

This issue has been automatically converted from the original issue lists and some formatting may not have been preserved.

Authors: The Open Group, Andrew Josey via Fred Tydeman
Date: 2003-08-15
Reference document: Open Group aardvark 117
Submitted against: C99
Status: Fixed
Fixed in: C99 TC3
Cross-references: 1002
Converted from: summary-c99.htm, dr_289.htm

Summary

6.7.6 (direct-abstract-declarator) is inconsistent with 6.7.5 (direct-declarator) with respect to omitting an identifier from a declaration to form a type name.

Here is a specific example that shows the problem.

 int lio_listio(int, struct aiocb *restrict const[restrict]);

is invalid and appears to have to be done as:

 int lio_listio(int, struct aiocb *restrict const __FOO[restrict]);

6.7.6 Type names, paragraph 2 has:

In several contexts, it is necessary to specify a type. This is accomplished using a type name, which is syntactically a declaration for a function or an object of that type that omits the identifier.

So you would think that if

  struct aiocb *restrict const __FOO[restrict]

is a valid declaration of the object __FOO, then it should follow from the above statement that

  struct aiocb *restrict const [restrict]

must be a valid type name.

Comment from WG14 on 2004-03-03:

Technical Corrigendum

In the syntax rules for direct-abstract-declarator in 6.7.6 paragraph 1, replace

direct-abstract-declarator_opt [ assignment-expression_opt ]

with

direct-abstract-declarator_opt [ type-qualifier-list_opt assignment-expression_opt ]

direct-abstract-declarator_opt [ static type-qualifier-list_opt assignment-expression ]

direct-abstract-declarator_opt [ type-qualifier-list static assignment-expression ]