From 68cb31901c590cabceee6e6356d62c84142114cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mike-m Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 23:45:43 +0000 Subject: Overhauled llvm/clang docs builds. Closes PR6613. NOTE: 2nd part changeset for cfe trunk to follow. *** PRE-PATCH ISSUES ADDRESSED - clang api docs fail build from objdir - clang/llvm api docs collide in install PREFIX/ - clang/llvm main docs collide in install - clang/llvm main docs have full of hard coded destination assumptions and make use of absolute root in static html files; namely CommandGuide tools hard codes a website destination for cross references and some html cross references assume website root paths *** IMPROVEMENTS - bumped Doxygen from 1.4.x -> 1.6.3 - splits llvm/clang docs into 'main' and 'api' (doxygen) build trees - provide consistent, reliable doc builds for both main+api docs - support buid vs. install vs. website intentions - support objdir builds - document targets with 'make help' - correct clean and uninstall operations - use recursive dir delete only where absolutely necessary - added call function fn.RMRF which safeguards against botched 'rm -rf'; if any target (or any variable is evaluated) which attempts to remove any dirs which match a hard-coded 'safelist', a verbose error will be printed and make will error-stop. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@103213 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- .../2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebate.txt | 67 ---------------------- 1 file changed, 67 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebate.txt (limited to 'docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebate.txt') diff --git a/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebate.txt b/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebate.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c09cf1f03c..0000000000 --- a/docs/HistoricalNotes/2001-02-06-TypeNotationDebate.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,67 +0,0 @@ -Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:27:37 -0600 (CST) -From: Chris Lattner -To: Vikram S. Adve -Subject: Type notation debate... - -This is the way that I am currently planning on implementing types: - -Primitive Types: -type ::= void|bool|sbyte|ubyte|short|ushort|int|uint|long|ulong - -Method: -typelist ::= typelisth | /*empty*/ -typelisth ::= type | typelisth ',' type -type ::= type (typelist) - -Arrays (without and with size): -type ::= '[' type ']' | '[' INT ',' type ']' - -Pointer: -type ::= type '*' - -Structure: -type ::= '{' typelist '}' - -Packed: -type ::= '<' INT ',' type '>' - -Simple examples: - -[[ %4, int ]] - array of (array of 4 (int)) -[ { int, int } ] - Array of structure -[ < %4, int > ] - Array of 128 bit SIMD packets -int (int, [[int, %4]]) - Method taking a 2d array and int, returning int - - -Okay before you comment, please look at: - -http://www.research.att.com/~bs/devXinterview.html - -Search for "In another interview, you defined the C declarator syntax as -an experiment that failed. However, this syntactic construct has been -around for 27 years and perhaps more; why do you consider it problematic -(except for its cumbersome syntax)?" and read that response for me. :) - -Now with this syntax, his example would be represented as: - -[ %10, bool (int, int) * ] * - -vs - -bool (*(*)[10])(int, int) - -in C. - -Basically, my argument for this type construction system is that it is -VERY simple to use and understand (although it IS different than C, it is -very simple and straightforward, which C is NOT). In fact, I would assert -that most programmers TODAY do not understand pointers to member -functions, and have to look up an example when they have to write them. - -In my opinion, it is critically important to have clear and concise type -specifications, because types are going to be all over the programs. - -Let me know your thoughts on this. :) - --Chris - -- cgit v1.2.3