Skip to main content
AI Assist is now on Stack Overflow. Start a chat to get instant answers from across the network. Sign up to save and share your chats.

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • That's a glibc man page, not the Linux kernel. The memcpy being documented is the one user-space C programs can use in libc.so, not the kernel internals. Some of the Linux manual pages maintained as part of the same project are for system calls, and the glibc wrapper for them, so those man pages will document differences between the library API vs. the raw kernel syscall. e.g. man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/brk.2.html#NOTES and man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/clone.2.html#VERSIONS. But others are purely for glibc user-space functions like printf and memcpy. Commented Sep 4, 2023 at 21:27
  • 1
    The Linux kernel mailing list is a specific mailing list, the LKML, [email protected] . en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_mailing_list / FAQ: vger.kernel.org/lkml. The list where the discussion took place was the Linux man-pages list. The topic of that mailing list is the Linux man-pages project, not the Linux kernel specifically. It's a Linux mailing list, but not precisely a Linux kernel mailing list. (kernel.org/doc/man-pages/linux-man-ml.html). The fact that it's hosted on kernel.org doesn't make it a Linux kernel mailing list. Commented Sep 5, 2023 at 1:41
  • 1
    Fixed. Also replaced all links with those from marc.info. Commented Sep 5, 2023 at 2:04
  • 1
    For what it's worth, types are required for the parameters list since C23, and K&R syntax like yours will become invalid. However, as they have already gone that far in creating an ad hoc syntax just for the sake of it, it doesn't seem they actually care that much about standard conformity. Also refer to the points in the answer by @JaredoMills. Commented Sep 5, 2023 at 13:41
  • 1
    @WeijunZhou: I don't think there has ever really been a consensus among Committee members as to whether the Standard should seek to define all the constructs programmers might need, or whether it should allow implementations to extend the language to accommodate such needs with the expectation that they will do so. Unfortunately, when there is consensus neither that a construct should be included, or that it should be excluded, the Standard waives jurisdiction without making clear that it's doing so, and some compiler writers interpret that as an intention to forbid the construct. Commented Sep 5, 2023 at 16:32