This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se,Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:57:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
- References: <10401271550.AA28749@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20040127095010.A29345@synopsys.com>
On Jan 27, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
Perhaps the documentation doesn't have to be in the file, but
has to be some texinfo documentation for it ?
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:50:28AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
No, I think it has to be in the file. That's the most logical place
and the only place that has any hope of being maintained as the file
Paper documentation is nice as well, but the way to get both, and to
the code and documentation consistent, is to use doxygen-style comments
and use that to generate the documentation.
That would be nice.
I really liked it when tree-ssa had doxygen generated comments.
They have a nice style and form to them that remind you to make sure
you've added docs for all the relevant things in a function (like
return value, etc).