This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
law@redhat.com wrote on 03.02.04 in <200402031634.i13GYTa3019190@speedy.slc.redhat.com>:
> In message <10402031550.AA21796@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner writes:
> > Which you have never read (at least a modern one), if you do not know
> > what a dominator is. My first compiler course, which used only part
> > of Appel's "Modern compiler implementation" (which is nowhere near in
> > depth with respect to Muchnick or Morgan) did teach dominators.
> >
> >Correct. My last compiler course was well over a decade ago.
> How is that relevant? Dominators are discussed in several texts one
> can read, including, but not limited to Morgan, Muchnick, Appel, Aho, etc.
> Dominators actually pre-date your decade-ago compiler course. Pick up a
> book and do a little reading :-)
Hmmm ... are they in the Dragon book? I certainly don't recall them, but
then it's been a while since I last looked in there.
The Dragon book certainly covers (a lot) more than the compiler courses I
took (which were at least two decades ago) - those covered none of those
terms.
> Which I'm less and less inclined to do since we're using standard
> terminology dating back over 15 years (you can find dominators and
> dominator tree all the way back in the dragon book and probably
> earlier if you care to look).
Ah. Well, if it's in the Dragon book, I consider it easily available
knowledge. (Gah. Where *did* I put that?)
> At some point you have to assume a base level of knowledge for your
> reader. Are we going to define CFG in every file which uses the CFG?
> Are we going to define the basic properties of SSA in every
> file which uses that form?
Ever heard of this thing called a "glossary"? Needn't be in every file
either. How about - daring idea - it gets put into a file called, oh,
"glossary.texi"?
MfG Kai