[PATCH v3 3/3] system_data_types.7: note struct timespec::tv_nsec type for x32 and portability

[Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)]

On 12/7/21 00:31, наб wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2021 at 11:56:19PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
>> I (more or less) understand the deduction of why that happens on certain
>> systems,  what I was wondering is if there's an intention behind that, or if
>> it's just an accident.  Why not just use plain 'long' always as POSIX says
>> it should be.  I don't see the feature part of this bug.
>>
>> 'long' is at least 32 bits, which
>> is enough for 1G.  Was there ever a good reason for glibc to use 64 bits?  It
>> seems like a wrong decision that is maintained for consistency.   If that's it
>> I'm in favor of mentioning it in a Bugs section (as Jakub proposed), instead
>> of a Notes section.  Maybe someone from glibc may give a rationale for this
>> deviation from POSIX.
> AFAICT, as you say, this isn't much more than a side-effect
> of using the amd64 ABI and not being too careful with how it interacts
> with the POSIX requirement (it's entirely feasible to re-wrap
> a user-space timespec, or even use the bitfield trick glibc
> already does to not have to do it), but then I'm far from an expert;
> indeed, maybe someone with more glibc involvement will know.
> 
> Updating to Bugs for now, maybe we can downgrade later.

Sure,  I'll delay applying this patch to allow for comments.

> 
>> Maybe preceding the paragraph with "In/On (I never
>> knew if there goes in or on) glibc," would do.
> Out of those two: on (in would point to glibc internals),
> but I'd actually go for "Under", here, since glibc is an over-arching
> (literally) universe-defining context, rather than an add-on,
> or something build your program on top of.

Interesting :)

> 
> For my own curiosity: which preposition would you use in Spanish here?
> 
I would say "en" (which normally translates to "in" in English).

Under some circumstances I might use "con" ("with" in English), but it 
would be rarer.

>> On 12/6/21 23:03, наб wrote:
>>> +.br
>> We don't use '.br'.  In this case I think just continuing in the same
>> paragraph would be fine (i.e., no break at all).
>>> +In reality, the field ends up being defined as:
>> Here I'd add a blank line with '.PP'.
>>> +.EX
>>> +.in +4
>> Please, revert the order of .in and .EX.
>> It's meaningless, but I prefer consistency.  See man-pages(7), which shows
>> this order, and also the following:
>>
>> $ grep -rn '^\.EX$' -A1 man? | grep '\.in' | wc -l
>> 2
>> $ grep -rn '^\.EX$' -B1 man? | grep '\.in' | wc -l
>> 1048
>>
>>
>> One of those 2 cases was this patch.
> Sure, sure, and sure
> 
>>> +#if !(__x86_64__ && __ILP32__ /* == x32 */)
>>
>> Now I notice:
>>
>> Shouldn't this use defined()?
>>
>> #if !(defined(__x86_64__) && defined(__ILP32__) /* == x32 */)
> Eeeeh, not really? That's functionally identical but, like,
> very verbose for no good reason.

Are those defined to actual values?  Or are they defined just empty?
I thought they were empty (but have never used those macros, so don't 
know at all), in which case it would matter:


user@sqli:~/src/test$ cat defined.c
#define C
#define D

#if A && B
#warning AB
#else
#warning notAB
#endif

#if C && D
#warning CD
#else
#warning notCD
#endif
user@sqli:~/src/test$ cc -Wall -Wextra defined.c
defined.c:7:2: warning: #warning notAB [-Wcpp]
     7 | #warning notAB
       |  ^~~~~~~
defined.c:10:7: error: operator '&&' has no left operand
    10 | #if C && D
       |       ^~
defined.c:13:2: warning: #warning notCD [-Wcpp]
    13 | #warning notCD
       |  ^~~~~~~



Cheers,
Alex


-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/