Actually, POSIX already ripped (part of) the description from the C
standard:
> Represents the floating-point status flags collectively,
> including any status the implementation associates with the flags.
This part is in the C standard (and POSIX also has it).
> A floating-point status flag is a system variable
> whose value is set (but never cleared)
> when a floating-point exception is raised,
> which occurs as a side-effect of
> exceptional floating-point arithmetic to provide auxiliary information.
> A floating-point control mode is a system variable whose
> value may be set by the user to affect
> the subsequent behavior of floating-point arithmetic.
And this is from POSIX only.
How would you go about it?
> Represents the floating-point status flags collectively,
> including any status the implementation associates with the flags.
POSIX describes a
> [s/A//] floating-point status flag [s/is/as] a system variable
> whose value is set (but never cleared)
> when a floating-point exception is raised,
> which occurs as a side-effect of
> exceptional floating-point arithmetic to provide auxiliary information.
According to POSIX,
> [s/A/a/] floating-point control mode is a system variable whose
> value may be set by the user to affect
> the subsequent behavior of floating-point arithmetic.
Like this?
Thanks,
Alex
On 2020-09-22 22:14, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
On 9/22/20 10:05 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 2020-09-22 21:57, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>
> The previous sentence is rather hard to parse. What (other) part of
> the sentence does "to provide auxiliary information" relate to.
> I suggest splitting the sentence in two and rewording.
>
>
>> +A floating-point control mode is a system variable whose
>
> You suddenly introduce "floating-point control mode" here.
> How does it relate to the preceding sentences? It's not clear.
>
> Going off to look at the standard... I see that actually your
> sentences come pretty much straight from the standard. So, first, I
> think the standard could have been clearer here. Second, and more
> important, (for copyright reasons) we are on shaky ground if we just
> lift whole passages from the standard. The text does really need to
> be in your own words. Can you come up with something?>
> Alternatively, I guess we could explicitly quote the standard.
> Something like
>
> POSIX describes this type as follows:
> .RS
> .PP
> [The text]
> .RE
Yes. A few patches ago I asked about that,
Sorry -- there was so much mail from you that I missed it!
but you didn't answer to that specifically,
so I guessed that it was just fair use:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/6dc80c25-85bf-925c-49c2-f79865027c0f@xxxxxxxxx/T/#mbfdcaf4fe625b4ff7ea90dc7396005fda1283612
Thanks for the pointer.
But I guess explicitly quoting POSIX would be easy and better,
as you proposed.
Yes, I think it''s simplest. (And a patch for 'fenv_t' may be
a good idea here as well.)
I never used that type, so I wouldn't dare to describe it in my own words.
Okay.
Thanks,
Michael
