From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14084 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 14:02:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14073 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 14:01:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 14:01:57 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 181SGj-0001po-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:01:57 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 181SFS-0004dK-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:00:40 -0400 Received: from web13308.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.175.44]) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.10) id 181SFS-0004dE-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:00:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20021015140036.1136.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [194.202.25.243] by web13308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:00:36 PDT Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:34:00 -0000 From: James Michael DuPont Subject: XML dumping and GraphViz/VCG in the GCC ast-optimizer-branch To: gcc@gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: * X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00813.txt.bz2 Dear GCC developers, I was really suprized and happy to see the patches applied to the ast-optimizer-branch from Sebastian Pop. His XML dumping of call graphs is very useful. Can I take this as general acceptance of XML dumping in the gcc? At least it has not been attacked or criticized on the mailling list. Also the dump-tree-dot module dumps into a format for the non-free software dot, a part of graphviz. I take this is an accepted practice of dumping tree structures for explict usage by non-free software? I hope that this is an indication that there is no longer any policy problem of using the ast-dumps from the gcc by other free software modules? I mean if the output is meant for non-free software, then you must be happy to have this output used by free software. Or is the contents of the CVS not an indication of policy at all, with the policy makers not enforcing them, and the cvs commiters not asking for permission? There have been many people who are interested in using the introspector for creating free software. I have been trying to convince people that it is better to not output asts to non-free software or xml. But if the gcc is accepting patches to do the same, then I would be silly not to follow suite. In fact, I cannot see any real reason anymore to get stressed out about this issue at all. We am going to be re-starting up the binary distribution of the patched gcc for full dumping of function bodies into xml and post processing in perl. I had taken them down out of respect to some or Also we we will be creating a local branch of the gcc ast-optimizer branch in the introspector.sf.net repository. My goal is to create a statically linked visualization and manipulation tool under the GPL by gluing togeather the components of the VCG, GNOME DIA, GCC and Perl. The VCG is a GPLed software that provides similar functions to GraphVis, In fact I have now gotten an "Un-Uglified" copy of the sources from the author, and will be pushing to get the Gcc users to switch over to use free software. Also I have planned out an exchange of the ast information via in-memory trees stored in the libxml2 dom structures. That would allow for the visualization tools to get a "Live feed" from the compiler as a push data feed. I hope that it will eliminate the need for external representation, in fact the entire system could be statically linked into one huge monolithic application. That would also include an embedded perl for a script interpreter. Anyway, we have many discussions about this issue on the list in the past, and I think this whole issue of external representation is really turning out to be a free-for-all where is it easier to ask for forgiveness then for permisison, not following any real guidelines. It is now time for me to get back in on this free-for-all, otherwise I will just be left out. Mike ===== James Michael DuPont http://introspector.sourceforge.net/ __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More http://faith.yahoo.com