Re: [PATCH 1/2] ctime.3: Use VLA notation for [as]ctime_r() buffer

["Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" <alx.manpages@gmail.com>]

Just forwarding a conversation to the list

On 10/21/21 11:20 AM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Jens,
> 
> On 10/21/21 11:03 AM, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote:
>> Hello Alejandro,
>>
>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 10:27:48 +0200, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
>>
>>> I rethinked it a bit after seeing pipe(2) again.  I never understood
>>> why 'static' should be needed at all in an array parameter.  The
>>> standard could have also accepted [26] as requiring at least 26
>>> elements in the array, without requiring the use of static.
>>
>> That's just speculation. They didn't, so for the compiler the
>> expression can just be ignore.
> 
> Since static is not required to give a diagnostic, I don't see a real 
> difference.  Both can be ignored.  But yes, that's speculating, and 
> maybe I should probably propose to the committee having the same 
> requirements for [26] as for [static 26] for C3X, and see what they come 
> up with.
> 
>> With what we have `static` conveys the
>> intent, and we should stick to that, I think.
> 
> Yes, maybe sticking to the standard will be better.
> 
>>
>>> There
>>> may be reasons for that that I ignore, of course; maybe backwards
>>> compatibility.... But since the man-pages can present the same
>>> information without the static keyword, I'll edit my patches to just
>>> use [restrict 26], instead of [static restrict 26], which is more
>>> compact.
>>
>> For the man pages that may be ok, but I still prefer that the headers
>> in the man page convey exactly the same normative information as the
>> specification of the standard.
> 
> Okay.  That makes sense.
> 
>>
>>> BTW, I just noticed that these emails were offlist.  If you want to
>>> keep them offlist, I'l do so, but we typically CC the list to have
>>> open discussions.  If you give me permission, I'll forward these
>>> emails to the mailing lists.
>>
>> Do as you feel, no problem with me. I just didn't want to "fall in
>> your back" on a public list for which I don't have an idea of their
>> actual dialogue culture.
> 
> Thanks!
> It's a small list with 2 maintainers and just a handful of other typical 
> contributors.  Typically, very nice compared to other lists, IMHO :)
> 
> And BTW, thanks also for your many StackOverflow contributions!  They 
> have been very helpful to me :-)
> 
>>
>> Thanks
>> Jₑₙₛ
>>
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/