This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Allan McRae <allan at archlinux dot org>, Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 00:10:17 +0000
- Subject: Re: glibc 2.19 status?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52E649BF dot 5020400 at archlinux dot org> <20140128205657 dot 16DBA74438 at topped-with-meat dot com> <52E9DEB7 dot 4000709 at redhat dot com> <52E9E84F dot 50907 at redhat dot com> <52EA682D dot 90900 at archlinux dot org> <ormwid428y dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401302131080 dot 12540 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orlhxvn1jp dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The latest patchset is indeed complete as in, every function in the
> glibc manual has a corresponding @safety note. There are glibc
> functions that are not documented in the manual, and most of these have
> not had their safety properties assessed.
Thanks for the information. Out of interest, do you have plans for
further work on this documentation, such as adding coverage of missing
functions to the manual (unfortunately I suspect that's a huge task;
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master#Missing_Functions>
points to some very old automation for listing undocumented functions) or
moving this documentation from listing observed properties to listing what
we want to guarantee (with bugs being filed if we think the present
interface does not achieve the guarantees we want)?
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com