This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] Contributing tree-ssa to mainline
Robert Dewar wrote:
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Documentating isn't as fun as coding.
Documentation is *part* of coding, a fundamental and important part. My
view is that no code should ever be accepted for inclusion unless it is
fully documented.
And I 100% agree; when I'm running a team, I demand docs as part of
coding. I find this often at odds with the wishes of marketing and
management -- but I explicitly look for clients who understand how
important documentation is.
GCC, however, is a "free" project; I doubt anyone could dictate
(successfully) that any patch include appropriate documentation, for
example. And while you and I may recognize the value fo documenting our
work, I find many programmers would rather code than comment.
I have not looked at the tree-ssa code in detail. I will try to do so
in the near future. But in general terms, I would be opposed to its
inclusion if the documentation is incomplete or inadequate.
I've been looking at the tree-ssa documentation, in terms of
understanding it well-enough to contribute to gfortran. I'm finding it a
rather frustrating experience; I've written some of that off to my own
inexperience with writing compilers, and some to a lack of "how this
works" documentation.
As I said in another message: I think tree-ssa advocates will find their
road easier to travel if they clearly and cleanly what tree-ssa does and
how it benefits GCC as a whole.
To me, a good programmer takes pride in the excellence of documentation
as an integral part of the code.
On that, we agree completely.
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing