[llvm-bugs] [Bug 37411] New: inconsistency in clang vs Clang usage in docs (c vs C)

[via llvm-bugs]

https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37411

            Bug ID: 37411
           Summary: inconsistency in clang vs Clang usage in docs (c vs C)
           Product: clang
           Version: unspecified
          Hardware: All
                OS: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: enhancement
          Priority: P
         Component: Documentation
          Assignee: unassignedclangbugs at nondot.org
          Reporter: jiri at navratil.cz
                CC: llvm-bugs at lists.llvm.org

I was trying to discover, if I have to use and write clang or Clang. I was
close to result, that clang is for binary and in all other usage, I have to use
Clang.

In looking to man page clang(1) on OpenBSD 6.2, I read in description part

clang is a C, C++, and Objective-C compiler which encompasses
     preprocessing, parsing, optimization, code generation, assembly, and
     linking.  Depending on which high-level mode setting is passed, Clang
     will stop before doing a full link.  While Clang is highly integrated, it
     is important to understand the stages of compilation, to understand how
     to invoke it.

So if my aasumption is correct, there is inconsistency in man page.

Could you please explicitly state ideally on more places, what is correct? and
also adjust accordingly man page?

Thank you,
Jiří

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-bugs/attachments/20180511/ae576907/attachment.html>