This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, lars dot segerlund at comsys dot se, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:02:14 -0500
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <10401271550.AA28749@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20040127095010.A29345@synopsys.com>
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 12:50, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Perhaps the documentation doesn't have to be in the file, but there
> > 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 for it
> > and the only place that has any hope of being maintained as the file changes.
>
> Paper documentation is nice as well, but the way to get both, and to keep
> the code and documentation consistent, is to use doxygen-style comments
> and use that to generate the documentation.
>
Which reminds me. What happened to the proposal that was discussed in
the last GCC summit to start adding doxygen markers to the source code
comments?
Right now, I run a simplistic script over some files in the tree-ssa
branch to add the basic '/**' markers to get online documentation. It'd
be nice if we could start using the full range of doxygen mark ups in
the comments (if not doxygen, any other similar tool would do).
Diego.