After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 707995 - @copydoc not working for const member overloads
@copydoc not working for const member overloads
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: doxygen
Classification: Other
Component: build
1.8.5
Other Windows
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Dimitri van Heesch
Dimitri van Heesch
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2013-09-12 21:24 UTC by Robert
Modified: 2013-12-24 18:59 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Sample that repros the problem (112.61 KB, application/octet-stream)
2013-09-12 21:24 UTC, Robert
Details

Description Robert 2013-09-12 21:24:23 UTC
Created attachment 254817 [details]
Sample that repros the problem

I find difficulty in both automatic link generation *and* @copydoc
when it comes to 'const' overloaded member methods. Example:

class foo
{
public:
  Object* getObject();
  Object const* getObject() const;
};

I have JAVADOC_AUTOBRIEF enabled. My documentation for the class above is:

class foo
{
public:
  /// Some brief documentation.
  /// @return Returns the object.
  Object* getObject();

  /// @copydoc foo::getObject() const
  Object const* getObject() const;
};

The warning I get from Doxygen is:

warning: Found recursive @copybrief or @copydoc relation for argument
'foo::getObject()'.

Attached archive has sample code, documentation output (HTML), doxyconfig file, and more.

Discussion on the issue with Albert on the mailing list:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31395240
Comment 1 Dimitri van Heesch 2013-09-21 15:51:45 UTC
Confirmed. Should be fixed in the next GIT update.
Comment 2 Dimitri van Heesch 2013-12-24 18:59:36 UTC
This bug was previously marked ASSIGNED, which means it should be fixed in
doxygen version 1.8.6. Please verify if this is indeed the case. Reopen the
bug if you think it is not fixed and please include any additional information 
that you think can be relevant (preferrably in the form of a self-contained example).