Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:31:10 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Ed Schouten <ed@nuxi.nl> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r286103 - head/share/man/man9 Message-ID: <20150731163110.GZ78154@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <CABh_MKm45daZPYPNFBmmkdP32sNMCtu1w33kapcouPvxcfN8_Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <201507310328.t6V3S3LC087650@repo.freebsd.org> <CABh_MKm45daZPYPNFBmmkdP32sNMCtu1w33kapcouPvxcfN8_Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ed Schouten wrote this message on Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:24 +0200:
> Maybe it would make more sense to just remove this manual page?
>
> It looks like there are already some pieces of code in our source tree
> that use _Static_assert(), which is good. Maybe it would be better to
> to leave CTASSERT() undocumented, so that it becomes less likely that
> new code uses this interface.
I plan on documenting _Static_assert, and once that is documented
for both userland and kernel, then we can mark this deprecated...
Do we support linking man pages between man3/man9? or should it just
be in a comment? and in one section?
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150731163110.GZ78154>