From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io1-xd42.google.com (mail-io1-xd42.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d42]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52E52386F83E for ; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 13:27:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 52E52386F83E Received: by mail-io1-xd42.google.com with SMTP id y20so1422133iod.5 for ; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 06:27:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gYNWbIX3wHxMLwSyqPl4DtbX/WZajm6O/P0Who7xZ1Q=; b=ZBt6wBngarO0Bt4apWBipyiieKQDBiiexhdbyry6XuhzRX9rt2Csa3rp0hFnkZkd37 quU5R7fwilYkgC8i4azXTgvL6K/rdzw6qAJNpWouLkXSkUbLCkXkugr0AIaFeixYb7tc /zPGYTVrPpq2+c0/lHFuDbCt1CmTvF7Rry+1tkdVGusox4ZJYftCKz8P3o+F3JZz6zgn IytFdkqN3u6Z9vi/Fug40qQcBNDGI8F9ZqTIA4Jy/Sq32nbykYkliQf/S2Tn4G7n5j04 aFAZRuyIQ5+yqLRDVV67epr6k4BUJdvXtPGvxyPM+ahgKG0dITnUVSlOQt6z96bAhpE9 0FUQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tUjBBdOiaLJjkvrLqBapnBJMC7Rgkg8LCaxUyKfh/cO08r45E LVCohGsxW6Tm8tgzrro5l5jNNWB1LULSz3qcBRXn6z66uFs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzmfjjOakmEA1Ir2GNxnKLbaQLxjeEDnBtdvP/iDkIltITKYbFY5ZSsvvp9V5rMgB8Ff3CpqWc1kVneHQQPWys= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:8b88:: with SMTP id p8mr1991911iol.172.1601645241799; Fri, 02 Oct 2020 06:27:21 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <41affebd-3354-9420-0048-bffd14535e95@gmail.com> <20201001154946.104626-2-colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com> <538b683f-01d2-6148-4f1d-1b293eb5cd6b@cs.ucla.edu> <4b86f6e9-0d8a-f14a-73ce-ebbdc9d9edba@gmail.com> <63826e82-7a19-0ecc-f73c-56aa560a842f@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <63826e82-7a19-0ecc-f73c-56aa560a842f@gmail.com> From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:27:10 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] system_data_types.7: Add 'void *' To: Alejandro Colomar Cc: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" , Paul Eggert , linux-man , GNU C Library , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 13:27:23 -0000 On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > > > On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc > wrote: > >>>> However, it might be good that someone starts a page called > >>>> 'type_qualifiers(7)' or something like that. > >>> > >>> Who is this for? Who is trying to learn C from man pages? Should > >>> somebody stop them? > >> > >> Yes, I think so. To add context, Alex has been doing a lot of work to > >> build up the new system_data_types(7) page [1], which I think is > >> especially useful for the POSIX system data types that are used with > >> various APIs. > > > > It's definitely useful for types like struct siginfo_t and struct > > timeval, which aren't in C. > > Hi Jonathan, > > But then the line is a bit diffuse. > Would you document 'ssize_t' and not 'size_t'? Yes. My documentation for ssize_t would mention size_t, refer to the C standard, and not define it. > Would you not document intN_t types? > Would you document stdint types, including 'intptr_t', and not 'void *'? I would document neither. I can see some small value in documenting size_t and the stdint types, as they are technically defined by the libc headers. But documenting void* seems very silly. It's one of the most fundamental built-in parts of the C language, not an interface provided by the system. > I guess the basic types (int, long, ...) can be left out for now, I should hope so! > and apart from 'int' those rarely are the most appropriate types > for most uses. > But other than that, I would document all of the types. > And even... when all of the other types are documented, > it will be only a little extra effort to document those, > so in the future I might consider that. [insert Jurassic Park meme "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." ] I don't see value in bloating the man-pages with information nobody will ever use, and which doesn't (IMHO) belong there anyway. We seem to fundamentally disagree about what the man pages are for. I don't think they are supposed to teach C programming from scratch. > But yes, priority should probably go to Linux/POSIX-only types.