On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:49 PM, NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote: >>> Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly), >>> GCC extensions internals, ... and gnu's own debugging tied to gcc >>> (if such exist nowadays), ... are not documented in a specification >>> driven way. >> >> That's interesting. Can you explain what you mean by a specification- >> driven way? > > I believe he's referring to top down system design, where you start > from requirements (a la IEEE 830 or IEEE 29148), make design documents > that meet those requirements, model them with something like IEEE 1016 > (which is basically UML), and only at the end provide implementation. > On GCC, the implementation tends to come earlier in the process. At > least, there's probably no UML representation of GCC's design.
I was referring to one of three approaches: i) Write a Specification document and a matching testsuite ii) Document _all_ data and code together with file formats (e.g. dumps). iii) Both (i) & (ii) (i) is easy (ii) is difficult (iii) doesnt sell the product well Sincerely, Seima Rao.