Hi Alex, et al.
On 10/2/20 3:51 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On 2020-10-02 15:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Alejandro Colomar
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael
On 10/2/20 2:10 AM, David Laight wrote:
> Also, you should
> warn that because one can convert from any pointer type to void * and
> then to any other pointer type, it's a deliberate hole in C's
> type-checking.
That isn't what the C standard says at all.
What is says is that you can
Hi Jonathan,
On 2020-10-02 15:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28,
On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
wrote:
However, it might be good that someone
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > > However, it might be good that someone starts a page called
> > > 'type_qualifiers(7)' or
Hi Alex,
On 10/2/20 10:48 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 2020-10-02 10:24, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
>> On 2020-10-01 19:32, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> > For 'void *' you should also mention that one cannot use arithmetic on
>> > void * pointers, so they're special in that way
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> wrote:
> > However, it might be good that someone starts a page called
> > 'type_qualifiers(7)' or something like that.
>
> Who is this for? Who is trying to learn C from man pages?
On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> However, it might be good that someone starts a page called
> 'type_qualifiers(7)' or something like that.
Who is this for? Who is trying to learn C from man pages? Should
somebody stop them?
From: Alejandro Colomar
> Sent: 02 October 2020 09:25
> > For 'void *' you should also mention that one cannot use arithmetic on
> > void * pointers, so they're special in that way too.
>
> Good suggestion!
Except that is a gcc extension that is allowed in the kernel.
> > Also, you should
>
Hi Michael,
On 2020-10-02 10:24, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
On 2020-10-01 19:32, Paul Eggert wrote:
> For 'void *' you should also mention that one cannot use arithmetic on
> void * pointers, so they're special in that way too.
Good suggestion!
> Also, you should
> warn that because one can
Hi Paul,
On 2020-10-01 19:32, Paul Eggert wrote:
> If you're going to document this at all, I suggest documenting 'void' as
> well as 'void *', and putting both sets of documentation into the same
> man page.
>
All the types we're documenting are in the same page:
system_data_types(7).
And then
12 matches
Mail list logo
