RE: Wrong documentation for open()

["Schwarz, Konrad" <konrad dot schwarz at siemens dot com>]

Hi Friedrich,

just to explain why this bug exists:

AFAIK, Unix originally had a two argument open(2).  creat(2) was used to create new files.

At some point, open(2) was changed to also be able to create new files.  For this case,
a extra third argument was required.

For the ABIs (and K&R C) on which Unix ran at that time, this did not make a difference in practice;
code could and still can use the two argument version.

With ANSI C, it was possible to
specify this interface in terms of variable argument lists.

Regards

Konrad
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: newlib-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:newlib-owner@sourceware.org]
> On Behalf Of Friedrich Lobenstock
> Sent: Donnerstag, 9. April 2015 18:03
> To: newlib@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: Wrong documentation for open()
> 
> Hello Eric!
> 
> Eric Blake wrote on 2015-04-09 17:38 MET:
> >> > The documentation, eg. the online version at
> >> > <https://sourceware.org/newlib/libc.html#index-open>, is wrong in
> >> > regards to the implementation of open().
> >> >
> >> > In the documentation the signature of open() is defined as:
> >> >     int open(const char *name, int flags, int mode)
> > That's documented merely as a minimum implementation; it always
> fails,
> > so it doesn't matter whether va_args is parsed compatibly or anything
> > else.  I see nothing wrong with that documentation being a bare
> > minimum, [...]
> 
> BUT there's no documentation for open() other than in the minimum
> implementation section!
> 
> --
> MfG / Regards
> Friedrich Lobenstock