This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: "Documentation by paper"

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>,paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:16:28 -0500
Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
References: <10402031550.AA21796@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <200402031700.56311.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl> <40201217.2040703@gnat.com>

On Feb 3, 2004, at 4:26 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:

Steven Bosscher wrote:

You can leave out an explanation of what a dominator is and still
be self-contained.  What's next, do we have to explain what a finite
automaton is in the sources of GCC?


It's definitely worth defining what a dominator is, since this is
indeed a term that is not used in absolutely identical manner by
all compiler papers.

Pardon? This is certainly an interesting claim. I've never seen a compiler paper that didn't define a dominator as "Node V dominates Node U if every path from start to U contains V" (excluding s/Node/Vertex/ and s/start/entry/)

I think if they did, the author would likely be ridiculed and possibly beaten. --Dan

References:
- Re: "Documentation by paper"
  - From: Richard Kenner
- Re: "Documentation by paper"
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: "Documentation by paper"
  - From: Robert Dewar

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]