Subject: Re: pipe(2) and invalid fildes
To: None <tech-kern@netbsd.org, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <woods@weird.com>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/30/2001 15:10:28
[ On Monday, October 1, 2001 at 03:17:22 (+1000), Darren Reed wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: pipe(2) and invalid fildes
>
> In some email I received from Bill Sommerfeld, sie wrote:
> > We should leave EFAULT in the man page, and we should clarify that we
> > reserve the right to change the implementation in the future.
> > 
> > The difference between getting EFAULT and getting SIGSEGV/SIGBUS is
> > purely an implementation artifact.
> 
> Shouldn't the documentation reflect the implementation?

I would very much prefer if the documentation pedantically reflected the
implementation.

For example if I want to learn how to write portable code I'll read lots
of documentation from lots of systems and I'll read standards documents.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>     <woods@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>