On 2/9/21 12:53 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 09/02/21 12:27 +0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: >> Hello Jonathan, >> >> On 2/9/21 12:09 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> The stat(2) man page says: >>> >>> SYNOPSIS >>> #include <sys/types.h> >>> #include <sys/stat.h> >>> #include <unistd.h> >>> >>> int stat(const char *pathname, struct stat *statbuf); >>> int fstat(int fd, struct stat *statbuf); >>> int lstat(const char *pathname, struct stat *statbuf); >>> >>> But I don't see anything there that would require <unistd.h>. POSIX >>> doesn't require it (and since POSIX.1-2001 no longer requires >>> <sys/types.h>, saying "Although <sys/types.h> was required for >>> conforming implementations of previous POSIX specifications, it was >>> not required for UNIX applications.") >>> >>> Is the inclusion of <unistd.h> there a mistake? >>> >>> I've been trying to track down why a libstdc++ header includes >>> <unistd.h> for no apparent reason, and my best guess is that it's a >>> result of this man page saying to do it. >>> >> As far as we can tell, there's no reason to include it. See >> <https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/97457bf2-2b29-af4b-c910-2391c69c4134@xxxxxxxxx/>. >> >> >> We haven't fixed it yet, because I'd like to fix all of the pages, and >> that's likely to take months (reading through every manual page in >> senctions 2 & 3, reading thorugh every included header, checking POSIX >> requirements, asking Michael if there may be historical reasons for a >> specific case, ...), but I'll do it some day. >> >> For now, if you submit a patch, I'll merge it. > > Attached, thanks. > > Hi Jonathan, Patch applied! However, we normally prefer inline patches, if possible. Thanks, Alex -- Alejandro Colomar Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/
