On 08/10/2020 08:18, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 07/10/2020 21:12, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:40 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote:
On 07/10/2020 17:26, Gedare Bloom wrote:
Thinking about the discussion about ordering directives in the docs,
the generated header reorders directives also. Is it also doing
generation by alphabetical order?
Should we consider using the same order as defined for the API
documentation? I guess this would make the Doxygen consistently
ordered wrt the docs.
This would make things a lot more complicated. For the Doxygen we have
to take also the C language into account. For example before you use a
type, it must be declared. This is done through automatic dependency
tracking and a topological sorting. Adding a manual order into this
stuff would be difficult.
Yeah, maybe. The value of ordering in the headers and doxygen is
probably less than in a manual. We can revisit later if we like. It
shouldn't be too hard in an API header (as opposed to an
implementation header with inlines) to group first the typedefs and
then the function declarations. But I have no real concern about the
ordering here, it was just a thought.
Good, I added a ticket for this:
https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4134#ticket
It is not on my high priority list.
It turned out to be pretty easy to fix with a bubble sort:
https://git.rtems.org/rtems-central/commit/?id=3f3e088740abc2d00cf9986452bef81eae83260e
Generated <rtems/io.h>:
https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/cpukit/include/rtems/io.h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
