Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
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> <CAH6eHdSLbaqTyXaPnBxnR4n+WVHJCBDF=C9RXa6To1rSuv0D4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKgNAkiHbK4RU_a_165yg3O6W0-GZMNLQoBNbut6ME=bW7pvCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH6eHdQrmsHxZbk3+JxRVZ5qH1fhFzLxyigs+DtEzSg2cet+kw@mail.gmail.com> <63826e82-7a19-0ecc-f73c-56aa560a842f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <63826e82-7a19-0ecc-f73c-56aa560a842f@gmail.com>
From:   Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:27:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdTpzNk4+Rg-+kUCRDZPLHe7MBBf2PK5i1WqD4VeEs60oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] system_data_types.7: Add 'void *'
To:     Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com>
Cc:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 14:20, Alejandro Colomar <colomar.6.4.3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020-10-02 15:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>  > On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:31, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>  > <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >>
>  >> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 12:49, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2020 at 09:28, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> 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.