svn commit: r317681 - head/share/man/man7

[Konstantin Belousov]

On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 08:57:10PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 3 May 2017, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 04:19:08PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 May 2017, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >>> +.Pp
> >>> +.Sy time_t
> >>> +is always signed, it is 64-bits everywere except on i386 and 32-bit powerpc.
> >>
> >> Change "is always" to "On all supported arches" as elsewhere.
> >>
> >> "everywhere"
> >>
> >> "everywhere" is redundant.
> > Ok.
> >
> >>
> >> The whole second clause is redundant.  Remove it.  Leave it to the reader
> >> to notice that the table has more 8's than 4's, and where the 4's are.
> > No, this is one of the important reasons why this narrative text added
> > at all.
> 
> Why?  You just added time_t to the table.  It needs to be described twice
> less than most types.
> 
> Now I don't like the indirection long -> sizeof(void *) in the first table.
> This is the only place where the size is not given as a literal.  There
> used to be space in the second table to give the size of long explicitly.
> Now the space is used for time_t.  It doesn't belong in the same table,
> since it is not a basic type.
> 
> Also, intptr_t and intmax_t are not in the tables.
> 
> > diff --git a/share/man/man7/arch.7 b/share/man/man7/arch.7
> > index 47a72a1986d..62781430329 100644
> > --- a/share/man/man7/arch.7
> > +++ b/share/man/man7/arch.7
> > @@ -36,8 +36,9 @@
> > Differences between CPU architectures and platforms supported by
> > .Fx .
> > .Pp
> > +If not explicitly mentioned, sizes are in bytes.
> 
> The first clause is redundant.  There are no explicit mentions of non-byte
> sizes.
> 
> > .Ss Type sizes
> > -On all supported architectures,
> > +On all supported architectures:
> 
> I see a further problem with this clause.  It is separated from the table
> that it applies to, by both indentation and a blank line, so it appears
> to apply to the second table also.
> 
> Later sections don't have a blank line where they reasonably could.  They
> start with a section header, then no blank line between that and the single
> table in the section.

Th discussion is now reduced to the opinions.  Do you have any further
objections due to factual mistakes or language errors in the proposed
patch ?  If not, I will commit it as is.