Hello, I don’t think it will too hard to convert C++ style doxygen comments into C style doxygen comments by writing a post-processing python script. However, at first we need to decide if we really want to do that. If so, we need to settle on the exact format. After that, I need to make sure that the comments in the new format will be rendered correctly in MS Tooltips, XCode, online documentation and PS4 internal documentation. This discussion + investigation might take a few days.
Before we start discussing the exact format, I want to make sure that we really want to change to C-style doxygen comments. Here are my not-so-strong arguments against it: - There currently are 257 occurrences C++ style comments in 14 other header files in /llvm/tools/clang/lib/Headers directory (I’m talking about the files that I didn’t touch). C++ style comments were there for AGES and nobody complained so far. If we decide to change C++ style doxygen comments -> C-style, we also need to change all regular C++ comments to C-style in these header files. - c99 (and later) supports C++ style comments, while I c89 doesn’t. I’m not sure if we have users that still use c89 format and x86 intrinsic headers at the same time. - C++ style doxygen comments are more pretty and readable compared to C-style comment (though it might be my subjective opinion). Let me know what you think. I will try to get Dmitri Gribenko’s opinion. He did a lot of work on doxygen in LLVM. I’m curious what he thinks about Javadoc style format. Katya. From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echri...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:51 PM To: reviews+d17550+public+bc8ce213fd9db...@reviews.llvm.org; Romanova, Katya; Gao, Yunzhong; griboz...@gmail.com; craig.top...@gmail.com; Robinson, Paul Cc: Bedwell, Greg; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h) Yeah, we should be doing this. Nice catch Paul and Greg. On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:34 PM Greg Bedwell <greg_bedw...@sn.scee.net<mailto:greg_bedw...@sn.scee.net>> wrote: gbedwell added a subscriber: gbedwell. gbedwell added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17550#360177, @probinson wrote: > One question I have, which shouldn't block this (as we've done several like > this already): > Is is okay to be using C++ style comments in these headers? > (Is there a C-style comment that Doxygen recognizes?) There are a few various formats that Doxygen supports. Looking at headers from llvm-c the most common convention appears to be JavaDoc style, although there are a few examples of other supported styles floating around the codebase. E.g. from include/llvm-c/lto.h using JavaDoc style: /** - Diagnostic handler type. - \p severity defines the severity. - \p diag is the actual diagnostic. - The diagnostic is not prefixed by any of severity keyword, e.g., 'error: '. - \p ctxt is used to pass the context set with the diagnostic handler. * - \since LTO_API_VERSION=7 */ -Greg Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D17550
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
