Le 28 nov. 2012 à 20:15, John McCall <[email protected]> a écrit :
> On Nov 28, 2012, at 4:10 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <[email protected]> wrote: >> Le 28 nov. 2012 à 01:37, John McCall <[email protected]> a écrit : >>> On Nov 21, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard >>> <[email protected]> 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. > There is already a bug for noreturn with interesting comments: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13818 And I filled one for _Thread_local: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14479 -- Jean-Daniel _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
