Re: where's dag ? (Phil Sweany)
3 Feb 1997 13:49:16 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
where's dag ? (1997-01-30)
Re: where's dag ? (1997-02-02)
Re: where's dag ? (1997-02-03)
Re: where's dag ? (1997-02-11)
Re: where's dag ? (Jerry Pendergraft) (1997-02-20)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: (Phil Sweany)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 3 Feb 1997 13:49:16 -0500
Organization: Michigan Technological University
References: 97-01-257 97-02-015
Keywords: tools

|> Wow. These statements so contradict my experience with 'dot' that I
|> feel compelled to stick up for it! ...

|> I couldn't have finished my Ph.D. without 'dot'.

My experience with DOT matches Jeff's exactly (except using it with my
PhD. I wish I'd been able to.) DOT is just the thing for displaying
the internals of my compiler, be it control flow graphs, data
dependence graphs, symbolic execution graphs, or any of several other
varieties of home-grown graphs that I use.

Phil Sweany
Michigan Technological University


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.