[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0101bd69-1c8d-dcf2-f60d-ff5a984b7566@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 14:35:39 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
To: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@...lk.net>
Cc: "A. Wilcox" <AWilcox@...cox-tech.com>, libc-coord@...ts.openwall.com,
Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@...hat.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
linux-man@...r.kernel.org, libc-alpha@...rceware.org, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [musl] Re: Re: regression in man pages for
interfaces using loff_t
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.
View attachment "0001-off64_t-prefer-off_t-for-splice-etc.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (8707 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
