This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 23:37:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <528BA2DA dot 3090608 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311192205550 dot 8742 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <ortxf6tcpk dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211304050 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orzjoxro50 dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Fri, 2013-11-22 at 03:39 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2013, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > And set all registers to initial values when the handler is called, rather
> > than calling it with any registers in the state they were at the time the
> > thread was interrupted?
>
> I don't think I looked into that, but it's been a while. My memory
> isn't as good as I (don't :-) remember it was before ;-)
>
> >> Should I bring simfpu back, named, hmm... fpresenv? And then add a
>
> > I prefer longer, more readable names (e.g. floating-point-environment).
>
> But that's meaningless. Well, yeah, I understand
> âfloating-point-environmentâ, but what about it? :-)
It tells people that there's a constraint to the safety (or a reason for
non-safety) that is in some way related to the floating point env. That
does pretend to be a self-contained definition, but should hopefully
make it easy to maintain a mental link to the precise definition.
> does-not-preserve-the-floating-point-environment and
> may-not-preserve-the-floating-point-environment-on-cancellation are
> -EWAYTOOVERBOSETOBEUSEFULASKEYWORDS to me ;-)
>
> We actually have good, settled precedent in using non-English keywords
> in error codes that may be stored in errno.
We won't use these safety keywords in code, just in documentation.
Thus, it will be in the context of full English sentences (or something
close to it ;) anyway. Also, unless we (likely will) need to
distinguish the two cases you mentioned, why do we need to make it more
specific?