NoQ accepted this revision. NoQ added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I think let's get this up and running and slowly redirect links from the front page to the new docs until only the front page is left? ================ Comment at: docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:36-37 + +.. literalinclude:: checkers/callandmessage_example.c + :language: objc + ---------------- Wow, that's pretty cool. Can we actually merge documentation with regression tests somehow, so that to automatically ensure that the documentation is correct? ================ Comment at: docs/analyzer/checkers.rst:2003 +View Exploded Graphs using GraphViz. + ---------------- Szelethus wrote: > While I would argue very strongly against the current website's every effort > at hiding implicit checkers, when we deliberately call this site a > documentation site, I definitely think that we should most include them here. > > Although, don't sweat it too much just yet, while the structure is still > being decided upon. Well, i mean, it's a good idea to make a distinction between a user guide from a developer guide. We should totally document these checkers, but we want to keep the user part of the guide user-comprehendable and, ideally, as short as possible. It's like people don't usually combine code comments with man pages; both are "documentation", but there's a huge difference between them driven by different target audience. At the same time, we already have a better "Debug Checks" page. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54429/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54429 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
