erichkeane wrote: > > > Oh yeah, that is not a good outcome. :-) I think Undocumented is a > > > special case. For this patch, I would not merge if the category is > > > Undocumented. > > > > > > @AaronBallman Oh, I forgot the other merged entry that is slightly smaller > > compared to `Undocumented` like this: > >  > >  > > Similarly, it doesn't look very pretty. > > > > Oh yeah, that is not a good outcome. :-) I think Undocumented is a > > > special case. For this patch, I would not merge if the category is > > > Undocumented. > > > > > > @AaronBallman Oh, I forgot the other merged entry that is slightly smaller > > compared to `Undocumented` like this: > >  > >  > > Similarly, it doesn't look very pretty. > > CC @erichkeane for opinions, but I think this is... ugly-but-reasonable. > Ideally, I'd like to see those split off (cf in one group, ns in another, > etc) with different documentation given that these are presumably doing > different things. But as it stands, I think this is better than repeating the > same information 15 times.
Ooof, that last one is frustrating. That just SCREAMS to me people re-using 'generic' documentation for a ton of things. I'm pretty grumpy about THAT. However, that is a vast improvement. As far as Undocumented, I like the idea of merging them into 1 table like the rest, but I would actually suggest that we just remove the 'header' that lists all the names (or change it to 'undocumented attributes'). WDYT? (could be done in a followup). https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134089 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
