Alejandro Colomar writes: > I've thought a bit more about it, and had an idea that might be > a reasonable compromise. > > Here's a sample: > > SYNOPSIS > - #include // See STANDARDS > + #include // or ; see memory.h(3head) > > void *memccpy(size_t n; > void dest[restrict n], const void src[restrict n], > @@ -34,8 +34,6 @@ ATTRIBUTES > STANDARDS > POSIX.1‐2008. > > - ISO C and POSIX declare this function in ; see memory.h(3head). > - > > Here's the commit message, which explains why I believe this is > a reasonable compromise: > > man/man3/: Put first in SYNOPSIS, then comment about > > This is a compromise between the fact that is the standard > header and (only slightly) most portable header file for these > functions, while hinting at the fact that it might be more appropriate > to use where possible. > > Remove the STANDARDS and NOTES about this, since now the SYNOPSIS > contains all the necessary information. The extra info is in > memory.h(3head), which is linked to in the SYNOPSIS. > > What do you think? Why, though? I think that, in the thread, it was already demonstrated (by Bionic having an empty memory.h for a time) that nobody includes on its own and expects to see these functions. (not that Bionic is that widely-used; a better test would be checking something like Debian codesearch) As I've noted before, what header provides what declaration is also largely inconsequential. So, the only effect of this can be to create new cases where is included, for no gain. It doesn't really matter that memory.h is only slightly less portable, IMO. It is unused, to the point where Autoconf recommends not using it, and no longer bothers checking whether 'mem*' functions are also present in string.h. Is suddenly reviving a dead header to copy a few declarations of functions well known to be part of string.h into it not just unneeded churn? Especially as program code would (nearly?) always need to do: #include #ifdef HAVE_MEMORY_H # include #endif -- Arsen Arsenović