Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2017-01-05 Thread Seima Rao
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:48 AM, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Seima Rao writes: >> Has gcc become proprietory/commercial ? > > By definition: no, yes. It's been this way since the beginning, and > hasn't changed in decades. > >> Or has it become illegal

Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-19 Thread DJ Delorie
Seima Rao writes: > Has gcc become proprietory/commercial ? By definition: no, yes. It's been this way since the beginning, and hasn't changed in decades. > Or has it become illegal to publish specification models > of gcc internals ? Does this make the

Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-19 Thread Seima Rao
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 19 December 2016 at 10:17, Seima Rao wrote: >> I was referring to one of three approaches: >> >> i) Write a Specification document and a matching testsuite >> >> ii) Document _all_ data and code together with file

Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 19 December 2016 at 10:17, Seima Rao wrote: > I was referring to one of three approaches: > > i) Write a Specification document and a matching testsuite > > ii) Document _all_ data and code together with file formats >(e.g. dumps). > > iii) Both (i) & (ii) > > (i) is easy I disagree. A

Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-19 Thread Seima Rao
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:49 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote: >>> Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly), >>> GCC extensions internals,

Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-18 Thread NightStrike
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote: >> Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly), >> GCC extensions internals, ... and gnu's own debugging tied to gcc >> (if such exist nowadays), ... are

Re: Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-18 Thread Andrew Haley
On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote: > Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly), > GCC extensions internals, ... and gnu's own debugging tied to gcc > (if such exist nowadays), ... are not documented in a specification > driven way. That's interesting. Can

Why are GCC Internals not Specification Driven ?

2016-12-17 Thread Seima Rao
Hi, For regular users of gcc who want to delve into the insides(guts) of the compiler, it is disappointing that there exist no complete specification of internals in a phase order manner. Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly), GCC extensions