Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Katya Romanova via cfe-commits]

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rL262385: This patch adds doxygen comments for the intrinsincs 
in the header file… (authored by kromanova).

Changed prior to commit:
  http://reviews.llvm.org/D17550?vs=48844=49534#toc

Repository:
  rL LLVM

http://reviews.llvm.org/D17550

Files:
  cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h

Index: cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h
===
--- cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h
@@ -27,25 +27,65 @@
 /* Define the default attributes for the functions in this file. */
 #define __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS __attribute__((__always_inline__, __nodebug__, 
__target__("popcnt")))
 
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///An unsigned 32-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 32-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ int __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _mm_popcnt_u32(unsigned int __A)
 {
   return __builtin_popcount(__A);
 }
 
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///A signed 32-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 32-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ int __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _popcnt32(int __A)
 {
   return __builtin_popcount(__A);
 }
 
 #ifdef __x86_64__
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///An unsigned 64-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 64-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ long long __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _mm_popcnt_u64(unsigned long long __A)
 {
   return __builtin_popcountll(__A);
 }
 
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///A signed 64-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 64-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ long long __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _popcnt64(long long __A)
 {


Index: cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h
===
--- cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h
+++ cfe/trunk/lib/Headers/popcntintrin.h
@@ -27,25 +27,65 @@
 /* Define the default attributes for the functions in this file. */
 #define __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS __attribute__((__always_inline__, __nodebug__, __target__("popcnt")))
 
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///An unsigned 32-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 32-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ int __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _mm_popcnt_u32(unsigned int __A)
 {
   return __builtin_popcount(__A);
 }
 
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///A signed 32-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 32-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ int __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _popcnt32(int __A)
 {
   return __builtin_popcount(__A);
 }
 
 #ifdef __x86_64__
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///An unsigned 64-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 64-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ long long __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _mm_popcnt_u64(unsigned long long __A)
 {
   return __builtin_popcountll(__A);
 }
 
+/// \brief Counts the number of bits in the source operand having a value of 1.
+///
+/// \headerfile 
+///
+/// This intrinsic corresponds to the \c POPCNT instruction.
+///
+/// \param __A
+///A signed 64-bit integer operand.
+/// \returns A 64-bit integer containing the number of bits with value 1 in the
+///source operand.
 static __inline__ long long __DEFAULT_FN_ATTRS
 _popcnt64(long long __A)
 {
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Eric Christopher via cfe-commits]

That's fine, thanks.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 10:52 AM Romanova, Katya <
katya_roman...@playstation.sony.com> wrote:

> Hi Dmitri,
> Thank you for your reply. I have double-checked that compiling a test
> invoking an intrinsic that has C++ style doxygen comments in the
> corresponding header doesn't cause compile-time errors/warnings in
> -std=c89 (and in  gnu89, c99, gnu99, c11, gnu11) modes.
>
> I will continue committing the rest of the x86 inrinsics header files with
> C++-style doxygen comments, unless there are any other objections.
> Katya.
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dmitri Gribenko [mailto:griboz...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:47 AM
> > To: Romanova, Katya
> > Cc: Eric Christopher;
> > reviews+d17550+public+bc8ce213fd9db...@reviews.llvm.org; Robinson,
> > Paul; Bedwell, Greg; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM
> > intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)
> >
> > 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

RE: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Romanova, Katya via cfe-commits]

Hi Dmitri,
Thank you for your reply. I have double-checked that compiling a test invoking 
an intrinsic that has C++ style doxygen comments in the corresponding header 
doesn't cause compile-time errors/warnings in 
-std=c89 (and in  gnu89, c99, gnu99, c11, gnu11) modes.

I will continue committing the rest of the x86 inrinsics header files with 
C++-style doxygen comments, unless there are any other objections.
Katya.



> -Original Message-
> From: Dmitri Gribenko [mailto:griboz...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2016 1:47 AM
> To: Romanova, Katya
> Cc: Eric Christopher;
> reviews+d17550+public+bc8ce213fd9db...@reviews.llvm.org; Robinson,
> Paul; Bedwell, Greg; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM
> intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)
> 
> 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

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Dmitri Gribenko via cfe-commits]

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Romanova, Katya
 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*/
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

RE: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Romanova, Katya via cfe-commits]

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?

Note, that if there is any complaint in the future, it will take a couple of 
hours to write a python script to convert from C++ to C style doxygen comments.

Katya.

From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echri...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 6:40 PM
To: Romanova, Katya; reviews+d17550+public+bc8ce213fd9db...@reviews.llvm.org; 
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)

Those are all compelling reasons for me. Let's go with whatever you and Dmitri 
think would be best for now. :)

-eric

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:41 PM Romanova, Katya 
<katya_roman...@playstation.sony.com<mailto:katya_roman...@playstation.sony.com>>
 wrote:
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<mailto:echri...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:51 PM
To: 
reviews+d17550+public+bc8ce213fd9db...@reviews.llvm.org<mailto:reviews%2bd17550%2bpublic%2bbc8ce213fd9db...@reviews.llvm.org>;
 Romanova, Katya; Gao, Yunzhong; 
griboz...@gmail.com<mailto:griboz...@gmail.com>; 
craig.top...@gmail.com<mailto:craig.top...@gmail.com>; Robinson, Paul
Cc: Bedwell, Greg; cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org<mailto: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

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Eric Christopher via cfe-commits]

Those are all compelling reasons for me. Let's go with whatever you and
Dmitri think would be best for now. :)

-eric

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:41 PM Romanova, Katya <
katya_roman...@playstation.sony.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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

RE: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Romanova, Katya via cfe-commits]

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

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Eric Christopher via cfe-commits]

Yeah, we should be doing this. Nice catch Paul and Greg.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, 10:34 PM Greg Bedwell 
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

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Eric Christopher via cfe-commits]

echristo added a subscriber: echristo.
echristo added a comment.

Yeah, we should be doing this. Nice catch Paul and 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

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Greg Bedwell via cfe-commits]

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

Re: [PATCH] D17550: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 6, popcntintrin.h)

[Paul Robinson via cfe-commits]

probinson accepted this revision.
probinson added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

LGTM.

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?)


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