> I hope I was clear and precise. Michael, please correct me if I was > wrong in some point. That all seems thorough and correct to me. The only thing I'd is: this is how it has always been. Even before Linux, the _exit(2)/exit(3) distinction existed, and the names are long understood to refer respestively to the syscall vs the libc API. So, while the syscall on Linux is SYS_exit, even in the section 2 page, where the interfaces SYS_xxxx are documented as xxxx(2), we retain the underscore for _exit(2). At least, that is how I've always understood it. Thanks, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
