From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7581 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 16:53:58 -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 7574 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 16:53:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 16:53:57 -0000 Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 181UxB-0006cn-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:53:57 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 181Uwg-0001d8-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:53:27 -0400 Received: from piper.synopsys.com ([146.225.1.217]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 181Uts-0000He-00 for gcc@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:50:32 -0400 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9FGo6a20025; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:50:06 -0700 From: Joe Buck Message-Id: <200210151650.g9FGo6a20025@piper.synopsys.com> Subject: Re: XML dumping and GraphViz/VCG in the GCC ast-optimizer-branch To: mdupont777@yahoo.com (James Michael DuPont) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:06:00 -0000 Cc: gcc@gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20021015140036.1136.qmail@web13308.mail.yahoo.com> from "James Michael DuPont" at Oct 15, 2002 07:00:36 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 version=2.41 X-Spam-Level: X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00836.txt.bz2 James Michael DuPont writes: > 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? Not necessarily. RMS still has to approve anything like this before we move it to the release branch. We can justify it only if the XML is in some sense incomplete: insufficient for use in proprietary back ends. > At least it has not been attacked or criticized on the mailling list. That's because it's incomplete (not a complete dump of the program structure). > 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? Again, no. RMS has explicitly objected to the graphviz support, so it probably won't be released. However, the situation is more complicated than you suggest: the (free software) Boost graph library supports graphviz reading and writing, as do other free programs. But let's not fool ourselves: the main reason people want graphviz output is to see the graph visually, and the way they do that is with the non-free program. So we might not be able to convince RMS to let us release that. > 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? Especially on side branches, you should assume that anything there is experimental and not necessarily accepted for release. Non-acceptance might be based on technical reasons or policy reasons.