This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu
- Cc: ian at wasabisystems dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:50:18 -0500
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
- References: <10401272019.AA01209@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
> In other words, I think this sort of approach is perfectly
> acceptable, and a good idea, for libraries, where the API is what
> counts.
Note that we do something similar in libiberty. Comments before each
function are extracted directly into texinfo documents, simply to
collect the API from where it's edited to where it's readable.
DJGPP's libc does something similar - texinfo docs are kept with the
sources (one texi file per c file), and collected into the libc
reference.
But I agree that none of the comments in any of the gcc sources have
really helped me *understand* why the gcc code is designed the way it
is.