Hi all, On 7/3/23 23:35, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2023-07-03 11:16, Jakub Wilk wrote:-This format is employed in cases where only a single -feature test macro can be used to expose the function -declaration, and that macro is not defined by default. +This format is employed in cases where feature macros +expose the function declaration with the correct type, +and these macros are not defined by default.This isn't right. The shorthand format is sometimes used when there's no off(64)_t involved, e.g. in memfd_create(2).Fair enough. Let's improve that wording to:This format is employed when the feature test macros ensure that the proper function declarations are visible, and the macros are not defined by default.Revised patch attached. If this wording is still not clear enough, please feel free to suggest better wording.
Thanks for the v3 patch, Paul. I like it. Would you mind resending it inline, to make it easier to quote-reply to it, in case anyone wants to discuss anything? Does anyone oppose to this patch, and wants to propose an alternative patch? Cheers, Alex -- <http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/> GPG key fingerprint: A9348594CE31283A826FBDD8D57633D441E25BB5
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
