On Sep 15, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> @Doug: CC'ing you since you requested this.
>
> The attached patch adds a warning for cases like:
>
> /// Aaa
> /// \deprecated
> void test_deprecated_4(int a);
>
> That is, comment has \deprecated but declaration does not have a
> deprecation attribute (deprecated or unavailable).
Perhaps also check for the 'availability' attribute.
> This warning is under a separate flag,
> -Wdocumentation-deprecated-not-sync, so it can be turned off easily
> while leaving other -Wdocumentation warnings on.
Okay. Can we drop the 'not' from the name?
> I did not add a fix-it note because it would appear inconsistently:
> 1. in case the comment is attached to a declaration we can emit a fix-it
> easily;
> 2. in case the comment is attached to the function declaration that is
> a definition, a whole new declaration needs to be added (because gcc
> does not allow attributes on a function definition).
It's okay that we can't always provide a Fix-It; we still get a lot of value
from having it in many cases. I recommend adding the Fix-It.
> I don't think that we need to add a warning with reverse logic about
> missing \deprecated, since documentation processing tools based on
> clang should be smart enough to look at attributes.
I agree.
> Please review.
Looks good, with one more comment: "declaration" is misspelled in the warning
text.
> Dmitri
>
> --
> main(i,j){for(i=2;;i++){for(j=2;j<i;j++){if(!(i%j)){j=0;break;}}if
> (j){printf("%d\n",i);}}} /*Dmitri Gribenko <[email protected]>*/
> <deprecated-not-sync-v1.patch>
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
