This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] pldd.1: Document glibc's unbreakage of tool.


Hello Joseph,

On 5/20/19 6:58 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2019, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:51 AM G. Branden Robinson
>> <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What would you prefer?  That the man page not document the bug at all?
>>> Was it a mistake in your view to have added the information about the
>>> bug to the man page in the first place?
>>
>> I think having the glibc upstream version information is useful.
> 
> Likewise - if a bug is worth documenting there I think it's unavoidable 
> that the version numbers describe when things changed in glibc upstream.
> 
> What's more of an issue is when the BUGS section gets out of date or the 
> descriptions of the conditions for an issue are misleading.  pow(3) is a 
> case in point; it says "On 64-bits" meaning "on systems using the generic 
> implementation" (i.e., it's written from an assumption that x86_64 and 
> i386 are the only architectures and that i386 is the default) and that> issue was fixed in 2.28,

So should the text now read something like: "Before glibc 2.28, on 64-bit
systems [this bug existed]"?

> while the "If x is negative" described there was 
> both i386-specific (not mentioned as such) and fixed in 2.16.

And similarly, should the text now read something like: "On i386 systems
and glibc versions earlier than 2.16..."?

Thanks,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]