Ingo Schwarze wrote (2023-09-04 16:27 IST): > Hi, > > Stuart Henderson wrote on Mon, Sep 04, 2023 at 11:07:52AM +0100: > > On 2023/09/04 11:05, Stefan Hagen wrote: > > >> $ man 1 autoconf > >> There is more than one version of this manpage available (show with -w). > > > oh that's a decent alternative. > > Indeed, in particular in combination with the other idea of only giving > the heads-up for clashes *with the same section number*. > > That reduces the waste of screen real estate to a single line, > even that is only printed when it really matters, and there are > only a handful of cases in the base system: > > genuine clashes in base: > ld(1) - ld.1 and ld.bfd.1 > perldelta(1) - perldelta.1 and perl5361delta.1 > > documentation bugs in base, same function documented twice: > CRYPTO_EX_dup(3), pem_password_cb(3), tls_reset(3) > > See below for an improved patch, resulting in: > > $ man FvwmPager > Multiple versions of FvwmPager(1) are available; list them with -w. > > FvwmPager(1) General Commands Manual FvwmPager(1) > > NAME > FvwmPager - the FVWM Pager module > [...] > > $ man autoconf > AUTOCONF(4) Device Drivers Manual (amd64) AUTOCONF(4) > > NAME > autoconf - diagnostics from the autoconfiguration code > [...] > > $ man 1 autoconf > Multiple versions of autoconf(1) are available; list them with -w. > > AUTOCONF(1) FSF AUTOCONF(1) > > NAME > autoconf - Generate configuration scripts > [...] > > $ man CRYPTO_EX_dup > Multiple versions of CRYPTO_EX_dup(3) are available; list them with -w. > > CRYPTO_SET_EX_DATA(3) Library Functions Manual CRYPTO_SET_EX_DATA(3) > > NAME > CRYPTO_EX_new, CRYPTO_EX_free, CRYPTO_EX_dup, CRYPTO_get_ex_new_index, > CRYPTO_set_ex_data, CRYPTO_get_ex_data, CRYPTO_free_ex_data, > CRYPTO_new_ex_data - functions supporting application-specific data > [...] > > Lightly tested so far.
Works as intended here. I'd be happy with this. I'm already finding new manpages. > >> Then you could stop after the second match in the same section. > > Actually, i think that's not even worth bothering. On a relatively fast laptop it's not noticeable. Without your patch: Benchmark 1: man -c FvwmButtons Time (mean ± σ): 8.9 ms ± 0.5 ms [User: 4.3 ms, System: 3.6 ms] Range (min … max): 7.6 ms … 11.5 ms 800 runs With your patch: Benchmark 1: man -c FvwmButtons Time (mean ± σ): 9.8 ms ± 0.6 ms [User: 5.2 ms, System: 3.8 ms] Range (min … max): 8.4 ms … 14.8 ms 800 runs Do you want to loop tech@ in on this? Or collect more feedback? I'm keeping this in my tree for now and will let you know if something unexpected happens. Best regards, Stefan
