Related articles |
---|
where's dag ? hagerman@chrysalis.com (1997-01-30) |
Re: where's dag ? jdean@puma.pa.dec.com (1997-02-02) |
Re: where's dag ? sweany@mtu.edu (1997-02-03) |
Re: where's dag ? cartegw@humsci.auburn.edu (1997-02-11) |
Re: where's dag ? jerry.pendergraft@parvenu.com (Jerry Pendergraft) (1997-02-20) |
From: | sweany@mtu.edu (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
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.