Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:03:48 +0100 From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> Message-ID: <87edq63uu3.fsf@igel.home> | My understanding is that a missing field does not have a length. That makes sense (though I don't know if POSIX anywhere says something like that) - but a field without a length would still not be at least 3 bytes long... | > But perhaps that could be clearer. | Perhaps it should say: "except that dst can be missing". I have entered a defect report into the POSIX (austin group) database of such things. https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1638 (Those are all available for public viewing). We'll what happens. I don't expect the (ugly) language I suggested as a resolution to be adopted, but something will be. Watch that space... kre