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

List:       linux-man
Subject:    Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] alloca.3: clarify reasoning for no error return in BUGS
From:       наб <nabijaczleweli () nabijaczleweli ! xyz>
Date:       2021-09-17 20:35:30
Message-ID: 20210917203530.im4x7dgkipufkt72 () tarta ! nabijaczleweli ! xyz
[Download RAW message or body]


On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 09:42:26PM +0200, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wro=
te:
> On 9/14/21 2:41 PM, =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=B1 wrote:
> > diff --git a/man3/alloca.3 b/man3/alloca.3
> > index 71348e609..20761b079 100644
> > --- a/man3/alloca.3
> > +++ b/man3/alloca.3
> > -There is no error indication if the stack frame cannot be extended.
> > -(However, after a failed allocation, the program is likely to receive a
> > +Due to the nature of the stack, it is impossible to check if the alloc=
ation
> > +would overflow the space available, and, hence, neither is indicating =
an error.
> I'm not sure this use of neither (without a preceding "not") is valid
> English.  Is it?
I don't see why not: "impossible" provides the first negation
(the "not" is lives in the "in-" prefix
 (well, "im-" because it's before a bilabial plosive),
 and "neither" is in its "likewise not" adverbial use).

=D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=B1

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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