This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 04 06:49:09 EST
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
But the comments from the beginning of each function is the
*specification* of the function and not the *implementation*, this is
where the documentation comes from.
That's correct, so I think we're talking about two different things.
The issue that was being raised was documentation *in the source* and
it sounded like you were saying that the documentation specification
of the function was derived from that of the implementation.
So what *is* the documentation that's derived from this?
If this is not true in your Ada sources, then you are not following
the coding style and every patch should be rejected here forth until
you or another Ada person fixes this.
In Ada, the specification and implementation of a function are in two
different files (or two different places in the same file for local functions)
and the documentation for each is located at the corresponding location.