r195983 - Update the LeakSanitizer documentation with a proper link.

[Sean Silva]

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Sergey Matveev <earthdok at google.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> All sanitizer docs are hosted externally. I'm not really sure why,
>>>> perhaps Kostya can say more about that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> the sanitizer run-time is shared between clang and other compiler(s) --
>>> today that's GCC, but we want to encourage other compilers to use our
>>> run-time too.
>>> So, we prefer to keep the docs in a single external place.
>>> We do have some user documentation in docs/ though, don't we?
>>> clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html
>>> clang.llvm.org/docs/MemorySanitizer.html
>>> clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSanitize.html
>>> clang.llvm.org/docs/LeakSanitizer.html
>>>
>>
>> That's what I find strange. Shouldn't they be in one place? Why are there
>> both external portions and internal portions?
>>
> What would you suggest?
>

I'm not sure. How much is there in docs/ that is not covered on the
code.google.com wiki? or vice versa? It seems at least that the
blacklist/specialcaselist format is documented in docs/ but not in the
wiki, and there appears to be a ton of stuff in the wiki that is not in
docs/. Also the various sanitizer documentation appears to be strewn about
3 different code.google.com projects. Maybe compiler-rt can grow its own
docs/ to keep this all in one place? It's pretty easy to set up Sphinx (I
did this for clang-tools-extra, for example); I'd be happy to help set that
up for compiler-rt.

I guess it ultimately boils down to where users should find the
documentation. As a user of this feature, I would like to find complete
user-level documentation for this feature (not "for more details, see...")
among my compiler's docs. Sphinx's output is flexible enough that it should
be able to integrate with other documentation systems if necessary (e.g. it
has texinfo output which IIRC is what GCC's docs are written in).

What was the rationale for introducing the duplication in the first place?
(maybe it was me complaining about the lack of docs in-tree?).

-- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20131204/9d55ad9e/attachment.html>