This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: "Documentation by paper"
- From: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- To: dberlin at dberlin dot org, dewar at gnat dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jamie at shareable dot org, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu,law at redhat dot com, paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it, peter at the-baradas dot com
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:28:23 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
To: dberlin@dberlin.org, dewar@gnat.com
Subject: Re: "Documentation by paper"
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jamie@shareable.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu,
law@redhat.com, paolo.bonzini@polimi.it, peter@the-baradas.com
> No, and you've missed my point.
> The paper on the exact algorithm we implement claims they help.
> With an implementation implemented *EXACTLY* according to this
> algorithm, they do not help.
> That is all.
> It has nothing to do with an implementation difference.
Again, remember that this thread is about documentation. This is indeed
an interesting observation, and most certainly something that should be
in the documentation. Just referring to the paper (see subject line
above) would be quite misleading if the paper implies that they help
but the implementation does not use them because of evidence that the
paper is wrong at that stage.