No need to have 4 separate manpages for these functions.
Sponsored by: Klara, Inc.
(will commit the small change in share/man/man3/stdckdint.3 separately)
Details
Details
Rendered version of manpage:
DIV(3) FreeBSD Library Functions Manual DIV(3)
NAME
div, ldiv, lldiv, imaxdiv – return quotient and remainder from division
SYNOPSIS
/* -lc */
#include <stdlib.h>
div_t
div(int numer, int denom);
ldiv_t
ldiv(long numer, long denom);
lldiv_t
lldiv(long long numer, long long denom);
#include <inttypes.h>
imaxdiv_t
imaxdiv(intmax_t numer, intmax_t denom);
DESCRIPTION
The div(), ldiv(), lldiv(), and imaxdiv() functions compute the value of
numer (the numerator) divided by denom (the denominator) and return the
stored result in the form of the div_t, ldiv_t, lldiv_t, or imaxdiv_t
types, respectively. These types are structs which contain two int, long,
long long, or intmax_t members named quot (the quotient) and rem (the
remainder).
STANDARDS
The div(), ldiv(), lldiv(), and imaxdiv() functions conform to ISO/IEC
9899:2024 (“ISO C23”) and IEEE Std 1003.1-2024 (“POSIX.1”).
HISTORY
The div() and ldiv() functions first appeared in 4.3BSD. The lldiv() and
imaxdiv() functions first appeared in FreeBSD 5.0.
FreeBSD 16.0-CURRENT February 18, 2026 DIV(3)Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG FreeBSD src repository
- Lint
Lint Skipped - Unit
Tests Skipped - Build Status
Buildable 70837 Build 67720: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 91 | Why not 2024? | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 91 | not sure why I did this, probably just an oversight | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80 | These types are structs which contain two int, long, long long, or intmax_t members named quot (the quotient) and rem (the remainder). I feel like we should include an example. Something along the lines of this, perhaps? These types are structs which each contain two members of the appropriate type, named
.Va quot
(the quotient) and
.Va rem
(the remainder):
.Bd -literal
typedef struct {
<type> quot, /* <type> quotient */
<type> rem, /* <type> remainder */
} <prefix>div_t;
.Ed | |
| 97 | Should we mention when that incompatible version was replaced with the current version? | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 80 | we can, this is what lldiv(3) and imaxdiv(3) had. I just thought it would be a little clunkier to have this struct for each type, but if you think having a template like your example is kosher, then we can do it like that. | |
| 97 | well "different" means different to the current version, so it goes without saying it was replaced | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 38 | I don't remember the fine details, but this is the correct syntax showed in all the reference material, and the other syntax appears to work but then when you dig in it does something weird in some corner case. I'm sorry that's not terribly satisfying. | |
| 39–41 | Upstream deprecated the LIBRARY section | |
| 97 | Yes, if we can say "when", that is extremely helpful for people maintaining real-world legacy installations. Great idea @rpokala! | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 38 | we do already have a lot of manpages which use this pattern. what corner cases are you thinking of? we might want to fix the existing manpages which do this too if this ends up being a problem | |
| 97 | it has had the current calling conventions since the 4.4 lite import. So as long as it has existed in FreeBSD | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 97 |
| |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 97 | I forgot the conclusion: we should probably just replace this sentence with the standard phrasing to indicate that ldiv() was added in .Bx 4.3. | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 38 | i have tried running mandoc -T tree on both options and they give identical trees | |
| lib/libc/stdlib/div.3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| 38 | yeah that's fair, changed | |