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 733605 - Incorrect LaTeX generation for private union member in C++
Incorrect LaTeX generation for private union member in C++
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: doxygen
Classification: Other
Component: general
1.8.6
Other Linux
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Dimitri van Heesch
Dimitri van Heesch
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2014-07-23 14:49 UTC by virgile.prevosto
Modified: 2014-08-21 17:15 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description virgile.prevosto 2014-07-23 14:49:54 UTC
Given the following C++ code

class Foo {
  private:
    union { int x; char y; } v;
  public:
    int get_int() { return v.x; }
};

and a standard configuration file, except for EXTRACT_PRIVATE=YES, doxygen is generating incorrect LaTeX code for the private attributes of Foo. More precisely, the relevant fragment of the tex document is following:

\hypertarget{unionFoo_1_1@0_a16eddb7296c37d91335845d7b847c6b3}{\>int {\bfseries x}\\
\hypertarget{unionFoo_1_1@0_ae4b5d1d732df4608dbc4871c55b7f4b2}{\>char {\bfseries y}\\

where the second argument of \hypertarget is lacking a closing brace }.

Setting EXTRACT_ALL=YES in addition to EXTRACT_PRIVATE=YES results in a correct output.

Issue has been originally mentioned on StackOverflow (https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24882358/doxygen-generates-incorrect-latex-code-over-private-union-attribute?noredirect=1#comment38671046_24882358), where it has been reported that 1.8.7 is affected as well.
Comment 1 Dimitri van Heesch 2014-08-04 14:04:03 UTC
Confirmed. Should be fixed in the next GIT update.
Comment 2 Dimitri van Heesch 2014-08-21 17:15:37 UTC
This bug was previously marked ASSIGNED, which means it should be fixed in
doxygen version 1.8.8. 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).