On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Romanova, Katya <katya_roman...@playstation.sony.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > Could you please let us know your opinion about C++ vs C-style doxygen > comments. Read this thread for ‘pro’ and ‘con’ arguments about using C++ > headers. Will LLVM online documentation look proper if we decide to use > C-style headers? Which style do you personally prefer to see?
There are C comments that both Doxygen and Clang recognize well, equally well to C++ comments. But I don't think that a change is necessary here. The reason is that these are compiler-internal header files, so they will only be ever parsed by Clang. No matter which mode Clang is in, it supports //-style comments, either as a part of the language, or as an extension, I believe. While it is true that a pure c89 compiler won't be able to parse these headers, we are not concerned about these builtin headers used by any compiler other than Clang. 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 <griboz...@gmail.com>*/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits