On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <devli...@shadowlab.org> wrote: > Le 28 nov. 2012 à 01:37, John McCall <rjmcc...@apple.com> a écrit : >> On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >> <j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> On 2012-11-21 16:19, Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> Definitely! Please send patches to the cfe-commits mailing list! >>> >>> The output of svn diff turns out to be larger, at 28KiB, than the file >>> itself, which is 27KiB. So I'm attaching the file as-is. Enjoy. I might >>> be persuaded to fill in some more of the missing bits. (-: >>> <clang.pod> >> >> First of all, thank you for doing this. I think this is an excellent start. >> >> I haven't read through the entire page yet, but I do have a major >> piece of feedback which (to be clear) I don't think should necessarily >> block this going into trunk. >> >> The major complaint is about your audience. Manual pages are >> user documentation, but you've got a lot in here that's more of a >> description of the clang *project* than a reference for the clang >> *program*. For example, a typical user of this manual page does >> not need to know straight off that Clang is built on top of the LLVM >> project and that we have separate stages of compilation that build >> semantically-rich ASTs and then translate them into LLVM IR. >> >> The man page should look basically like this: >> >> 1. Synopsis >> 2. Brief description (a few paragraphs, easily scrolled past) of >> capabilities of tool, possibly with copious forward-references >> 3. Discussion of basic usage >> 4. Detailed options reference >> 5. Architectural details if user-relevant >> 6. End-matter >> >> So personally I would rewrite the introduction somewhat like this: >> >> B<clang> is a C, C++, Objective-C, and Objective-C++ compiler. It >> fully supports the C11 and C++11 language standards as well as a >> robust set of language extensions. Its option syntax is (with one >> exception, see OPTIONS below) a superset of that of the the >> POSIX.1:2008 C<c99> utility. > > Maybe this introduction is a little too optimistic about the C11 full support. > While clang supports the most useful C11 extensions, I'm not sure it can > claim full support yet (for instance, _Noreturn and _Thread_local keywords > support is not implemented at all).
Good point; we should only claim C99 conformance. Would you mind filing PRs about the missing extensions, though? Both of those should be quite straightforward. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
