|where's dag ? email@example.com (1997-01-30)|
|Re: where's dag ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-02-02)|
|Re: where's dag ? email@example.com (1997-02-03)|
|Re: where's dag ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-02-11)|
|Re: where's dag ? email@example.com (Jerry Pendergraft) (1997-02-20)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Phil Sweany)|
|Date:||3 Feb 1997 13:49:16 -0500|
|Organization:||Michigan Technological University|
|> 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.
Michigan Technological University
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.