From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B49D03858C5E for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 03:02:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org B49D03858C5E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1678417378; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to; bh=N3L8Se9HgEEc2IydIDO/tq6Or+cBwA6BX550OL+c56E=; b=f/DJ5a2zfS0n4BH+YeaQ959bTwI7DLcLTdKIqTxhjhoiRsx+na7LfEt/pE7t/GyBaWqQ0Y CeVQn4AG4rxZT43jiAjW4uwZuxGtxeawLwAhX6rXkDi9BnYE6DTSufaqlQ5ZuIclRnvHog 80mNVsFHI5CeENVOC8Dg1V2/QMDloFw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-371-OPmF63X1Oeew2FS035OuKg-1; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 22:02:57 -0500 X-MC-Unique: OPmF63X1Oeew2FS035OuKg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB37585A588; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 03:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com (unknown [10.22.9.14]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 909BA2026D4B; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 03:02:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from greed.delorie.com.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 32A32sMa3275134; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 22:02:55 -0500 From: DJ Delorie To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: pjfloyd@wanadoo.fr, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, linux-man@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Issues in manpage memalign In-Reply-To: <77cfc3d2-cd41-13a7-bdb9-ced179531f33@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 22:02:54 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Alejandro Colomar via Libc-alpha writes: > I've CCd glibc, in case someone there can confirm in which direction they > would like the manual page to go. see https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20137 and https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-February/145858.html I've got this on my to-do list to fix aligned_alloc to conform to, probably, C17. I'll send an update for the man page when I update the code, if you don't do it first ;-) I don't know of any discussions to change our stance on memalign() at this time.