[PATCH v2] rtems: Generate <rtems/io.h>

Sebastian Huber sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
Sun Oct 11 14:16:27 UTC 2020

On 08/10/2020 08:18, Sebastian Huber wrote:

> On 07/10/2020 21:12, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 11:40 AM Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2020 17:26, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>> Thinking about the discussion about ordering directives in the docs,
>>>> the generated header reorders directives also. Is it also doing
>>>> generation by alphabetical order?
>>>> Should we consider using the same order as defined for the API
>>>> documentation? I guess this would make the Doxygen consistently
>>>> ordered wrt the docs.
>>> This would make things a lot more complicated. For the Doxygen we have
>>> to take also the C language into account. For example before you use a
>>> type, it must be declared. This is done through automatic dependency
>>> tracking and a topological sorting. Adding a manual order into this
>>> stuff would be difficult.
>> Yeah, maybe. The value of ordering in the headers and doxygen is
>> probably less than in a manual. We can revisit later if we like. It
>> shouldn't be too hard in an API header (as opposed to an
>> implementation header with inlines) to group first the typedefs and
>> then the function declarations. But I have no real concern about the
>> ordering here, it was just a thought.
> Good, I added a ticket for this:
> https://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4134#ticket
> It is not on my high priority list.

It turned out to be pretty easy to fix with a bubble sort:


Generated <rtems/io.h>:


More information about the devel mailing list