I don't know. It's fairly out of date, but wouldn't be too hard to bring up to date. However, it's an odd thing to have as the only analyzer internals documentation, and really none of the analyzer docs should live on the main Clang site anyway. (It's a downside of having the public docs be in docs rather than www/docs.) I'm not sure where we should put them instead, though.
Ted, what do you think we should do with AnalyzerRegions.rst? Sean, what do you think we should do with the analyzer docs in general? Jordan On Dec 15, 2012, at 15:49 , Sean Silva <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:36 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> --- cfe/trunk/docs/index.rst (original) >> +++ cfe/trunk/docs/index.rst Fri Dec 14 18:36:53 2012 >> @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ >> ThreadSanitizer >> Tooling >> AddressSanitizer >> - AnalyzerRegions >> ClangPlugins >> ClangTools >> HowToSetupToolingForLLVM > > This doesn't remove it from the Sphinx docs build. However, it does > cause a Sphinx warning that the document is not included in any > toctree. > > Basically I see three options here. > > If the doc is so out of date that it will only confuse people, then either > 1. bring it up to date (this is the "right thing" to do, which helps > people who want to learn about the static analyzer), or > 2. delete it (this doesn't help people understand the analyzer, but is > at least better than leaving in a document which will confuse people). > > or, if the doc is out of date but still might be helpful, then > 3. Leave it in the documentation (and fix the sphinx warning), but add > a warning at the top (`.. warning::`) that informs the reader that the > document is out of date but that it still might be helpful. > > -- Sean Silva _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
