Re: [PATCH] man/: SYNOPSIS: Remove GNU forward-declarations of parameters for lengths of array parameters

[Alejandro Colomar <alx+linux-man@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2163 bytes --]

Hi Martin,

> Date: 2026-10-25 09:40:52+0100
> From: Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at>
>
> Am Sonntag, dem 25.10.2026 um 08:38 +0100 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
[...]
> > > Yes, but we do not even have a proposal and [static 1] exists today.
> > 
> > Actually, we do have one: n3803.
> > <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3803.txt>
> > 
> > The wording on this one is good.  I think I forgot some trivial
> > duplication of the diff for both the non-abstract and the abstract
> > declarators, but I can fix that when I arrive home, so we could have it
> > in time for the next meeting.
> 
> Yes, please.  But this would also not work for function pointer,
> so I thought you meant something new.

Done.  I've asked Dan for a number, and sent the draft to the mailing
list.

> > > > And we also have the issue that it changes the meaning of the bound.
> > > > It's just terrible.
> > > 
> > > The bound in [1] has no meaning in parameters,
> > 
> > This is not true.  ISO C is just toilet paper in this regard.
> > It has a meaning in SDCC and GCC, and every programmer that ever wrote
> > [1] assigned a meaning to it.  Moreover, I'm using [1] myself to express
> > pointers to exactly 1 element.
> 
> In GCC [static n] and [n] have the same meaning, except
> that [static] additionally implies that the pointer is not null.
> I have worked on this, so please assume I know this.

Indeed, I know you know.

> In ISO C it is as I said, [n] has no meaning and [static n]
> is a strict subset of what we want.

And I insist that ISO C should be ignored.  It doesn't matter what ISO C
says about it, and your statement that [1] has no meaning in parameters
is giving it too much credibility.

> So I am really confused about what you are trying to tell me.

I'm trying to say that [1] has a meaning, even outside of GCC.  Every
programmer that ever wrote [n] meant the obvious thing.  The fact that
ISO C ignores this shouldn't be an excuse to claim that [static n]
doesn't change the meaning, because it is a de-facto change of meaning.


Cheers,
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]