On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 12:41:08PM +0000, Robert Bragg wrote: >> As a bit of an asside; last year for another project of mine I once >> wrote an experimental tool for extracting gtk-doc comments from code >> to using the python clang bindings: >> https://github.com/rib/clib/blob/master/site/rst-from-c.py >> >> It's crossed my mind to play around with being able to extract >> kernel-doc with clang along similar lines which could potentially >> track more type information so the docs could support more than just >> .. c:function and .. c:type, such as c:macro and c:member and could >> better handle things like function pointers as members of structs. >> Maybe it's an idea worth considering. > > Talk to Jani, he has it implemented already somewhere. But kernel-doc is a > horrible, and we have about 50k existing comments that all need to still > parse, so it's really tricky to move forward. Yeah, I admit to having a little side project to use python-clang to extract documentation comments directly into Sphinx. But I've pretty much decided I'm not going to pursue making it a replacement for kernel-doc. There is no point in that unless it has a chance of being merged upstream, and I think depending on clang is a non-starter for that. I'm just totally disinterested in having that discussion. Instead, I'm trying to make it a really small and clean alternative for Doxygen in Sphinx based documentation. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
