Re: [Doxygen-develop] Bug in 1.4.0?
Brought to you by:
dimitri
Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Doxygen-develop] Bug in 1.4.0?
|
From: Cadle, B. <bc...@ar...> - 2005-01-06 19:33:59
|
First,
Thank you Dimitri for creating Doxygen and putting in the effort to =
maintain the application. Doxygen is a much better application than =
most of the other alternatives I found on the world wide web.
Second,
Given your response below I have an additional request or item for the =
wish list. My request is at the bottom of the thread.
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 at 11:46:10 +0100, Dimitri van Heesch wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:20:51PM -0600, Dan Gass wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:19:25 -0800, Cadle, Brad <bc...@ar...> =
wrote:
> > > I noticed that in moving from version 1.3.9.1 to 1.4.0 the =
behavior of the \todo command seems have been broken:
> > >=20
> > > in 1.3.9.1 all the /todo commands for a single C function are =
grouped under a single heading in the file reference.
> > >=20
> > > In 1.4.0 Each /todo command in the file reference for a single =
function results in a separate heading in the file reference.
> > >=20
> > > Example:
> > >=20
> > > /** \todo Fill out function. */
> > >=20
> > > /** \req Complies with requirement squiggy */
> > >=20
> > > /** \ps Test Psuedo Code line 1 \endps */
> > >=20
> > > /** \todo Remove ret =3D 1. *
> > >=20
> > > (NOTE: /ps is an alias I defined)
> > >=20
> > > 1.3.9.1, I get for the file reference
> > >=20
> > > Todo:
> > > Fill out function.
> > >=20
> > > Remove ret =3D 1.
> > >=20
> > > Requirements:
> > > Complies with requirement squiggy
> > >=20
> > > Pseudo Code:
> > > Test Psuedo Code line 1
> > >=20
> > > 1.4.0, I get for the file reference
> > >
> > > Todo:
> > > Fill out function.
> > >=20
> > > Requirements:
> > > Complies with requirement squiggy
> > >=20
> > > Pseudo Code:
> > > Test Psuedo Code line 1
> > >=20
> > > Todo:
> > > Remove ret =3D 1.
> > >=20
> > > Clearly, 1.3.9.1 is desirable.
> > >
> >=20
> > This may be a result of a bug fix (id 157485) I'll let Dimitri =
comment
> > further.
> >=20
>
> As Dan mentioned, this was the result of some people (Dan was one of =
them)
> reporting that the order in which they placed their commands was not=20
> maintained. I think there is something to say for that as well
> (especially since the same is not done for other commands such as =
@warning).
> So I think it not so clear that the pre-1.4.0 behaviour was better.
>=20
> Regards,
> Dimitri
Given that it is not clear that the pre-1.4.0 behavior is better, Can =
you add
an option to the Doxygen config file that lets this behavior be toggled =
on and off. =20
For Example, you could define GROUP_TODO_ITEMS and have YES be pre-1.4.0 =
behavior
and NO be 1.4.0. If you do take this route, I recommend you do that for =
all similar
items in Doxygen. Since xrefitems also appear in the function =
documentation (optionally)
it would also be useful to have GROUP_XREF_ITEMS. =20
Regards,
Brad
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:58:11 +0100
From: Dimitri van Heesch <di...@st...>
To: Richard Pillay <RPD...@Ya...>
Cc: DOxygen Developer's List <dox...@li...>
Subject: Re: [Doxygen-develop] Bug in 1.4.0
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 11:37:15AM +1100, Richard Pillay wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>=20
> I've just changed from 1.3.9.1 to 1.4.0 and Doxygen crashed on me =
under Windows. I eventually narrowed it down to the following type of =
line in a text file:
>=20
>=20
> One,2,three,four
>=20
>=20
> If you place the line in a text file and include it in what doxygen is =
documenting, it crashes. This did not happen previously.
>=20
> Dimitri, if you don't have time to look at it, could you give me a =
idea where to look and I'll download the source and see what I can find.
I take crash reports very seriously. They get the highest priority, so I
have time to look at your problem, but first I need to be able to =
reproduce it.
Your description is not clear enough for me to actually reproduce the =
crash.
Please tell me:
- The exact config file (or difference w.r.t. the default)
- The source code you used (file name(s) + content)
- The platform you use (variant of windows in your case).
- The version of doxygen (1.4.0 in your case, but was it the binary =
version
or did you compile it yourself?)
If possible bundle the files in a zip, verify that the problem is still=20
reproducable and send the zip to me (or to the list if the zip is very =
small).=20
The bug tracker is an even better way to report bugs.=20
Regards,
Dimitri
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:06:02 +0100
From: Dimitri van Heesch <do...@gm...>
Reply-To: di...@st...
To: "Cadle, Brad" <bc...@ar...>
Cc: dox...@li..., =
dox...@li....
Subject: [Doxygen-develop] Re: [Doxygen-users] Wish list (or is it =
present?): Order of routines in Call Graph.
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:56:05 -0800, Cadle, Brad <bc...@ar...> wrote:
> I apologize if this has been addressed elsewhere, but my question is =
this:
>=20
> I have not found a way to specify that the order of appearance of the =
routines in the Call Graphs reflect the order in which they are in the =
code.
>=20
> For Example I would like:
>=20
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> int ack;
>=20
> ack =3D Foo();
> if (ack)
> {
> Bar();
> }
> Yin();
> Yang();
>=20
> return ack;
> }
>=20
> to produce something like this:
>=20
> main
> |
> |
> |
> ---------------------
> | | | |
> Foo Bar Yin Yang
>=20
> and not some other order of appearance of Foo Bar Yin Yang.
>=20
> Will this eventually be possible or is there already a mechanism to do =
this?
Doxygen uses dot to layout the graph. Dot doesn't know about the
calling order so it
will not keep it. I don't know how one could prescribe such order using =
dot.
Regards,
Dimitri
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Doxygen-develop mailing list
Dox...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/doxygen-develop
End of Doxygen-develop Digest
|
