[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: C99 Status - inttypes.h
From:       "Paulo J. Matos" <pocmatos () gmail ! com>
Date:       2011-07-22 15:37:25
Message-ID: j0c5fl$sm6$1 () dough ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On 22/07/11 16:22, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> I have to disagree, library issue means that it's an issue with the
>> library, not gcc.
>
> It still makes sense to clarify the language to indicate that, depending on
> the library used, this might be, in fact, a library non-issue.
>

We might be interpreting this differently. When I you it's a "library 
issue", I understand it as begin something that has to do with the 
library, not that it is a definite problem with the library. Therefore 
if I want to see what's the feature status I should check the library 
documentation. I didn't think that saying it is a library issue would 
mean that it is definitely broken/missing in the library.

Then again my native language is not english. However, by raising this 
you're proving your point. If we can avoid different interpretations 
then better.

> I agree that trying to track every library there would be a maintenance
> burden, but giving one example of a library that works is meaningful.
> And, since GCC is still a GNU project, mentioning the status of GNU libc
> doesn't seem that arbitrary.

Even just listing the status of a single feature from GNU libc might be 
dangerous. You're duplicating information that's probably available in 
the manual anyway and risk publicizing out-dated information. Also, 
you'll need someone to volunteer to keep track of the status of every 
feature in glibc that's listed a library issue in the c99 page. A better 
way to do this if you want to mention glibc would be to link to glibc 
documentation directly. Something like:

"Status of this feature in glibc <http://.../libc/manual/...>"

-- 
PMatos

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]