...
> >
> >Whether or not you feel like the manpages are the best place to
> > start that, I'll leave up to you!
>
> I'll try to defend the reasons to start this in the man-pages.
>
> This feature is mostly for documentation purposes, not being meaningful
> for code at all (for some me
Hi,
the only point i strongly care about is this one:
Manual pages should not use
* non-standard syntax
* non-portable syntax
* ambiguous syntax (i.e. syntax that might have different meanings
with different compilers or in different contexts)
* syntax that might be invalid or dangerous wi
Hi Martin,
On 9/3/22 14:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
[...]
GCC will warn if the bound is specified inconsistently between
declarations and also emit warnings if it can see that a buffer
which is passed is too small:
https://godbolt.org/z/PsjPG1nv7
That's very good news!
BTW, it's nice to see th
Am Samstag, den 03.09.2022, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 9/3/22 14:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
> [...]
>
> > GCC will warn if the bound is specified inconsistently between
> > declarations and also emit warnings if it can see that a buffer
> > which is passed is too sma
Hi Martin,
On 9/3/22 16:35, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Samstag, den 03.09.2022, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
Hi Martin,
On 9/3/22 14:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
[...]
GCC will warn if the bound is specified inconsistently between
declarations and also emit warnings if it can see that a b
Hi Ingo,
On 9/3/22 15:29, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
the only point i strongly care about is this one:
Manual pages should not use
* non-standard syntax
* non-portable syntax
* ambiguous syntax (i.e. syntax that might have different meanings
with different compilers or in different contexts
Hi Alejandro,
Am Samstag, den 03.09.2022, 16:59 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> Hi Martin,
>
> On 9/3/22 16:35, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Am Samstag, den 03.09.2022, 15:41 +0200 schrieb Alejandro Colomar:
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > On 9/3/22 14:47, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> >
Hi Martin,
On 9/3/22 17:31, Martin Uecker wrote:
[...]
But the recent discussion about presenting
nonnull pointers as [static 1] is horrible. But let's wait till the
future hopefully fixes this.
yes, [static 1] is problematic because then the number
can not be used as a bound anymore.
My ex
Snapshot gcc-12-20220903 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20220903/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
