From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C623FC4332F for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACB5E60F9E for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231334AbhJUJ3o (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 05:29:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53542 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231320AbhJUJ3n (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 05:29:43 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x335.google.com (mail-wm1-x335.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::335]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 410ACC06161C for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 02:27:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x335.google.com with SMTP id m42so154wms.2 for ; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 02:27:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6wR5V8pJh9cSBVQR4mBDspIzXMgPxvbNjBpspLsBP8o=; b=YAMpjHfTk2ptoYOsyx13glN3Kt+78I8xbFFdRBIWYP8YagUewJ1Cxln0kZDvBsNzuh ELRh98DIREFfEknz/Pak5eaYNMkN86Plin8mbAkzohglhnsCuJqfNCa4DtDlkBFruvCm EOwoQsLENvpU78ZgwzNgaalxAPSzt0sfKB1Epv2lCmZSupVOX/T47Scfmfc2dfdndEj9 018Zn65T0GuuAcoLArPTYQ1uxo4yLzgzwnOsRMFygE0WsyWhjEhZnh3BVCXHmjRwOdcd poB4JJSZ5/mThuI3BTZWvU2uUzNjFSsCO5MiNIBB99u2KOPC/gz8Op4p+tXcPMldFowV 069Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6wR5V8pJh9cSBVQR4mBDspIzXMgPxvbNjBpspLsBP8o=; b=F2KY5ECzkda3phckcdGCBLermvDWPbSaFoamV4qoQp3PACM/kzlK+rbdNeV7ZzDN0P 2BdWodWossKseyGrKqFsUwRzx7pydnXuki0m9rPhtLLfwTe73r4WPwCxkfB8HvZgshEw vkqtSZBrrRYckwwaRtLVNvL/nq1TlvHBwYiGLa1lY4nZlc2DG0xjhIT1uvbdGzw0Lntr zc8s5MDzHFZrd0yeZfdOY8h9w7bzRhql+DjvcM/sYvNWskvpZUECqZAJvNlwFAHmj10z 2cz7zK5kTmd9md/EATz+Ti8ACzPEcZQyG5K8+VbMG8O8gy7PErldHrzzIZKIIn0Egt2Y a3Mg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/s9hXdEdd6YgLYNsqdHZhvodtr+qAZBS+DL6OekYr9kSUMT9z Yy4ZB2dbK0fCcw98V8bjh880vhAEsoo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzwIx1m8NnfpJ+iHtRN6xmQ48wEskSEeJxJc7/O0sU89lPUtcUQHSAe3HiOtDrTqOx6oi6k1g== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9ad4:: with SMTP id c203mr5346024wme.41.1634808446890; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 02:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.8.0.138] ([195.53.121.100]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k17sm8391700wmj.0.2021.10.21.02.27.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 02:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ctime.3: Use VLA notation for [as]ctime_r() buffer From: "Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)" To: =?UTF-8?B?SuKCkeKCmeKCmyBHdXN0ZWR0?= , linux-man References: <20211020202241.171180-1-alx.manpages@gmail.com> <20211021092746.78bc82f8@inria.fr> <20c1e58b-ba2b-f9df-ab1f-f80725414cf5@gmail.com> <5782a3ea-9774-3acb-e365-1e4d03ed3358@gmail.com> <20211021110311.52541d69@inria.fr> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 11:27:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-man@vger.kernel.org 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/