Documentation for code_warntype tells to look for @code_warntype but that one is useless

[ulysses4ever]

This is a documentaion issue. Consider the last line of the help message for code_warntype:

help?> code_warntype
search: code_warntype @code_warntype

  code_warntype([io::IO], f, types; debuginfo=:default)

  Prints lowered and type-inferred ASTs for the methods matching
  the given generic function and type signature to io which
  defaults to stdout. The ASTs are annotated in such a way as to
  cause "non-leaf" types which may be problematic for performance
  to be emphasized (if color is available, displayed in red).
  This serves as a warning of potential type instability.

  Not all non-leaf types are particularly problematic for
  performance, and the performance characteristics of a
  particular type is an implementation detail of the compiler.
  code_warntype will err on the side of coloring types red if
  they might be a performance concern, so some types may be
  colored red even if they do not impact performance. Small
  unions of concrete types are usually not a concern, so these
  are highlighted in yellow.

  Keyword argument debuginfo may be one of :source or :none
  (default), to specify the verbosity of code comments.

  See @code_warntype for more information.

So, I'm ready to dive deeper and fire help for @code_warntype:

help?> @code_warntype
  @code_warntype

  Evaluates the arguments to the function or macro call,
  determines their types, and calls code_warntype on the
  resulting expression.

And that is it.

So, either the last line of help for code_warntype should be removed, or help for @code_warntype should be expanded.

julia> versioninfo()
Julia Version 1.9.3
Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC)
Build Info:
  Official https://julialang.org/ release
Platform Info:
  OS: Linux (x86_64-linux-gnu)
  CPU: 16 × AMD Ryzen 9 6900HX with Radeon Graphics
  WORD_SIZE: 64
  LIBM: libopenlibm
  LLVM: libLLVM-14.0.6 (ORCJIT, znver3)
  Threads: 1 on 16 virtual cores

Julia installed with snap.

[brenhinkeller]

Should possibly just say "see also" rather than "for more information"

[ulysses4ever]

Yep, that would work too.

[ulysses4ever]

I submitted a PR to that effect: #51361.