Hi! On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:21:15AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2021 at 23:01, наб <nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > --- > > man3/strdup.3 | 3 --- > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/man3/strdup.3 b/man3/strdup.3 > > index 1e1ac34de..963de7d48 100644 > > --- a/man3/strdup.3 > > +++ b/man3/strdup.3 > > @@ -99,9 +99,6 @@ and > > are similar, but use > > .BR alloca (3) > > to allocate the buffer. > > -They are available only when using the GNU > > -GCC suite, and suffer from the same limitations described in > > -.BR alloca (3). > > Dropping mention of GCC seems reasonable, but why drop the piece about > "same limitations..."? That paragraph now reads strdupa() and strndupa() are similar, but use alloca(3) to allocate the buffer. I think this is short and unflowery enough that nothing more is needed (or, indeed, anything more would be detrimental) ‒ and clearly points to "see alloca(3) for the limitations of that allocator". Plus, it's not like malloc(3) doesn't have its problems, too, but I don't see those being touted in the first paragraph; reducing these to the bare minimum, strdup() copies into malloc(3) and you can free it with free(3), strndup() likewise, but up to n, and str[n]dupa() use alloca(3) instead ‒ be wary of what alloca(3) does! doesn't really make sense ‒ it's obvious that, ex definitione, alloca(3) suffers from alloca(3) problems and input limits, just like malloc(3) from the malloc(3) suite's. > > Signed-off-by: Ahelenia Ziemiańska <nabijaczleweli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > This patch could do with a short commit message I think. See below. How about something like this for the message? str[n]dupa() are available on every modern platform, incl. Clang, ICC, &c.; by shortening the third paragraph, it now points squarely to alloca(3), which is scary enough, so drop the extraneous warning Best, наб
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
