On 2007-07-26 15:43:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> By the way, note the following in the spec of :
>
> 11296 CX NULL Null pointer constant. The macro shall expand to an integer
> constant expression +
> 11297 with the value 0 cast to type void *.
Yes, "The macro shall expand to an int
> > > This is wrong. The current revision (P1003.1 Draft 3, 15 June 2007)
> > > uses the term "null pointer" (defined in 3.243).
> >
> > Of course it uses that term. But it *ALSO* uses other
> > terminology. Frequently. See below.
>
> But then I assume that this should be regarded more or less
> > > > but that doesn't change the point that the terms that I mentioned
> > > > above are used throughout the standard (even in the POSIX.1
> > > > revision
> > > > that is currently in progress.. I sere no problem with them.
> > >
> > > This is wrong. The current revision (P1003.1 Draft 3, 15
On 2007-07-26 12:07:10 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > On 2007-07-26 10:16:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > How do you deduce that it is the "standard: wording? Because
> > > it uses that terminology that on one page?
> >
> > The following pages also use the term "null pointer":
> > ht
Vincent,
> On 2007-07-26 10:16:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > > No, this seems to have been fixed in the 2004 edition of POSIX (Issue
> > > 6). See
> > >
> > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/utimes.html
> > >
> > > It only uses the term "null pointer". Since it i
On 2007-07-26 10:16:07 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > No, this seems to have been fixed in the 2004 edition of POSIX (Issue 6).
> > See
> >
> > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/utimes.html
> >
> > It only uses the term "null pointer". Since it is the standard wording,
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:27:06 +0200
Von: Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
An: Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Betreff: Re: Bug#431480: manpages-dev: incomplete utimes(2) man page and
typo
> On 2007-07-20
On 2007-07-20 08:31:03 +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> The copy of POSIX.1-2001 I am looking at is littered with the use of terms
> like:
>
> NULL
> NULL pointer
> non-NULL
> a NULL pointer
> non-NULL value
> if ... is [not] NULL
>
> and so on. So one of us is confused by your last point; at the
tags 431480 fixed-upstream
thanks
Hello Vincent,
The changes described below will be in upstream 2.65.
> 1. The utimes(2) man page mentions:
>
>int utime(const char *filename, const struct utimbuf *buf);
>int utimes(const char *filename, const struct timeval times[2]);
>
> and
Package: manpages-dev
Version: 2.56-1
Severity: normal
1. The utimes(2) man page mentions:
int utime(const char *filename, const struct utimbuf *buf);
int utimes(const char *filename, const struct timeval times[2]);
and describes the case where buf is a null pointer, but not the ca
10 matches
Mail list logo
