Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:04:23 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de>, David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include unistd.h src/lib/libc/sys brk.2 src/libexec/rtld-aout rtld.c src/libexec/rtld-elf malloc.c Message-ID: <20020124180052.B37491-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> In-Reply-To: <20020124185812.C74534@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: RE>On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 05:52:31PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: RE>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: RE>> RE>> RE>On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:49:21PM +0100, Harti Brandt wrote: RE>> RE>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, David Malone wrote: RE>> RE>> RE>> RE>> DM>> Cool, thanks! RE>> RE>> DM> RE>> RE>> DM>Bruch pointed out that we still have a small problem with the man RE>> RE>> DM>page. Both brk and sbrk are now library functions, but their man RE>> RE>> DM>page is still in section 2. RE>> RE>> RE>> RE>> sbrk is a library function, that is based on SYS_break. SYS_break is a RE>> RE>> system call, implemented in vm_unix.c (obreak()). So we would have to RE>> RE>> split the man page between sections 2 and 3. RE>> RE>> RE>> RE>> We should probably also add a .St -susv2 in the man page, now that we are RE>> RE>> conform to the standard. RE>> RE>> RE>> RE>Neither sbrk() nor brk() are part of the POSIX.1-2001. RE>> RE>> but of the Single Unix Specification, Version 2 which -susv2 refers to: RE>> RE>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/brk.html RE>> RE>> POSIX.1-2001 is SUSv3 RE>> RE>I don't see much point in documenting conformance to an obsolete RE>standard. Do you? Yes. People may try to write programs conforming to whatever, even an old, standard to be portable to platforms supporting only that old standard. If they look at the man page for brk it's nice if they don't have to read the entire page to find out that they can use it because it appears to be conform. New standards usually don't replace old standards, but coexist. Now, that the new Posix is out we are not going to sweep through the man pages and removing all references to old POSIX, are we? harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fhg.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020124180052.B37491-100000>