This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>
- To: dberlin at dberlin dot org (Daniel Berlin)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org (gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org), Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM (Joe Buck), kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner), dnovillo at redhat dot com (Diego Novillo), lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se, zack at codesourcery dot com (Zack Weinberg)
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:36:11 +0000 (GMT)
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
> > Dunno about anyone else, but I am all for this.
> >
>
> Is there anyone *except* Richard Kenner who is against this?
It depends on how much clutteris added to the source, and also
on the impact on maintenance.
Regression testing is already quite time-consuming. I wouldn't want to
have to check the doxygenation for every patch I install.