On 2026-02-14T13:30:05+0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > On 2026-02-14T11:51:36+0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/aiocb.3type.html doesn't tell > > you that the order shown there is not the real order used on linux. > > Hmmm, this was explained in system_data_types(7). When the page was > split into many, that information remained there (and I still have > pending the move of the remaining two types in that page). > > That page says: > The structures described in this manual page shall contain, at > least, the members shown in their definition, in no particular or‐ > der. > > My intention was (and still is) to move that page to intro(3type), and > keep system_data_types as a link page to intro(3type). > > > It > > does tell you to look at aio(7), which says: > > > > struct aiocb { > > /* The order of these fields is implementation-dependent */ > > How about '/* members in no particular order */'? > > > ... > > /* Various implementation-internal fields not shown */ > > I'd replace the second comment by '/* ... */' How about this? $ diffman-git --- HEAD:man/man3type/aiocb.3type +++ ./man/man3type/aiocb.3type @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ SYNOPSIS #include struct aiocb { + /* members in no particular order */ int aio_fildes; /* File descriptor */ off_t aio_offset; /* File offset */ volatile void *aio_buf; /* Location of buffer */ @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ SYNOPSIS int aio_reqprio; /* Request priority offset */ struct sigevent aio_sigevent; /* Signal number and value */ int aio_lio_opcode; /* Operation to be performed */ + /* ... */ }; DESCRIPTION > > > }; > > > > I think it would be helpful to repeat that in aiocb(3type) so you > > don't need to go to a second page to get that info. If aiocb(3type) > > shows actual C code with a struct definition it's reasonable to assume > > that it is accurate, which isn't the case here. The comments in the > > aio(7) page make that clearer. > > > > The Glibc manual > > > > just names the fields (not showing an actual struct definition) and > > doesn't imply anything about the order. > > I prefer the actual struct definition. I think it's more readable. > > > Have a lovely day! > Alex > > -- > --