https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=90261 Bug ID: 90261 Summary: The BUGS section of the getopt(3) man page describes something that's no longer a bug Product: Documentation Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P1 Component: man-pages Assignee: documentation_man-pages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Reporter: guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx Regression: No The BUGS section of the getopt(3) man page says: The POSIX.2 specification of getopt() has a technical error described in POSIX.2 Interpretation 150. The GNU implementation (and probably all other implementations) implements the correct behavior rather than that specified. The interpretation in question is at https://collaboration.opengroup.org/external/pasc.org/interpretations/unofficial/db/p1003.2/pasc-1003.2-150.html The request for the interpretation said To match historic and expected practice, the "not less than argc" on POSIX.2, P733, L504-505 would need to be changed to "greater than argc". and the resolution of that interpretation is In particular the interpretations committee do not believe that this change from historical practice was intended. The interpretations committee beleive that on page 733, line 504, the words 'not less than' should be changed to 'greater than'. and the Single UNIX Specification, Version 4, entry for getopt(), at http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/getopt.html says If the option was the last character in the string pointed to by an element of argv, then optarg shall contain the next element of argv, and optind shall be incremented by 2. If the resulting value of optind is greater than argc, this indicates a missing option-argument, and getopt() shall return an error indication. so it appears that the *current* version of POSIX - i.e., the Single UNIX Specification - has been changed in the fashion requested. The BUGS section should probably note this, so that nobody thinks that GNU libc's getopt() behaves in a non-standard fashion in that respect. (The bug was 100% in the POSIX.2 edition, not in the code.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
