This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Missing documentation
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Missing documentation
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 21:14:13 -0700
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 08:39:20PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> Thanks for the extra information. How about this paragraph?
>
> Besides declarations, the file indicates, in comments, the
> origin of each declaration (source file and line), whether the
> declaration was implicit, prototyped or unprototyped
> (@samp{I}, @samp{N} for new or @samp{O} for old, respectively,
> in the first character after the line number and the colon),
> and whether it came from a declaration or a definition
> (@samp{C} or @samp{F}, respectively, in the following
> character). In the case of function definitions, a K&R-style
> list of arguments followed by their declarations is also
> provided, inside comments, after the declaration.
That looks good. An example would be helpful:
int foo(int bar) {}
-->
/* file.c:1:NF */ extern int foo (int bar); /* (bar) int bar; */
> > You should also mention that this is used during the GCC build, and by
> > (un)protoize.
>
> This is already covered elsewhere in the manual.
Didn't know that. Okay.
--
zw If punishments don't compensate the victims and don't prevent future
crimes they seem to me to be indistinguishable from random acts of
sadism.
-- Bernard Peek