zaks.anna added a subscriber: Alexander_Droste. zaks.anna added a comment. > Even though there are some doxygen-style comments in the checkers, i’ve never > seen doxygen actually generate any docs for checker classes.
> Are they useful for IDE quick-hints only? I think it's useful to have consistent documentation format. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811#497585, @NoQ wrote: > Answering myself: Hmm, so the only reason why MPI checker class appears in > doxygen > (http://clang.llvm.org/doxygen/classclang_1_1ento_1_1mpi_1_1MPIChecker.html) > is because this class is not in anonymous namespace (as far as i understand, > they needed to be multi-file for some reason). CheckerDocumentation says that > every checker must be wrapped in anonymous namespace, except > CheckerDocumentationChecker :) > > I don’t really see a good reason for the library functions checker to be > moved out of anonymous namespace or deserve a doxygen page - after all, it’s > all in one file, and the docs are right in front of the reader’s eyes anyway. > But maybe if this checker expands enough, we could expose its data structures > into public use, and then they'd be worth documenting :) It has been originally written as a large set of files. If you feel strongly about it, we could merge it into a single file. That makes sense to me. @Alexander_Droste, what do you think? https://reviews.llvm.org/D20811 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
