Hello Alex, On 9/16/20 1:01 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > > Hi Michael, > > Changelog since v4: > > - Comment "See also" about yet undocumented size_t > - Simplify header ordering > - Curate See also > - Remove incorrect headers > > > On 2020-09-15 23:30, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: >> Okay. Time to nit pick:-). Do not be too dispirited, >> I think we started with some of the most difficult types... > > I was waiting for it :-). > >> I soppose what I meant is that POSIX defers to the C standard >> in the cases where they overlap, and I'd expect that the set >> of headers specified in the C standard and in POSIX might be the >> same, but where they're not, I suspect the list of POSIX headers >> would always be a superset of the C headers. So, just make a >> single list of those headers, followed by 3 and 4 (merged) > > See updated comment in the page. It looks good to me. >> I suggest dropping the pages marked XX. The remaining can serve >> as the (commonly used) exemplars of APIs that use this type. > > Done. I don't have experience enough to subjectively decide > which ones should stay and which ones we should drop, so... > >> Okay, now I look closer at these lists. How have you determined them? > > I kept references to all APIs that use the type in the prototype. > > And for the headers list: > > I started reading the contents of the headers, but all I had seen > did actually define the type, so I guessed that all the remaining > grep appearances would also define the type. Clearly, I guessed wrong. What I did was read the specifications of the .h files in the standard, to see which ones said "shall define type XXX". I think that's the way we should go, at least for types that are in the standards. >> <sched.h> only defines time_t since POSIX.1-2008, as far as I can >> tell! I'm not sure how/if we want to represent that detail. > > I added a Notes section for that type. You like it? Yes. >> But size_t is not in this page (yet). Is it in your tree? > > Not yet. In my tree I didn't forget to comment it, though. As you can > guess, It'll be the next type to document, and then ptrdiff_t. > >> Today I learned: size_t is in C99, but ssize_t is not! [...] I have no comments on the page. It looks great! I'm happy to merge it now, unless you have something you want to change first. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
