From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Thu Jan 29 11:07:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom7 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom7@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id C373CC56CFF; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:07:22 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ns.nag-j.co.jp (218-42-159-107.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp [218.42.159.107]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B09EC56CF9 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:07:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from 218-42-159-108.cust.bit-drive.ne.jp ([218.42.159.108] helo=[127.0.0.1]) by ns.nag-j.co.jp with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LSTmz-0003Rw-2E for sc22wg5@open-std.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:06:25 +0900 Message-ID: <49817FEE.9010404@nag-j.co.jp> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:07:42 +0900 From: Malcolm Cohen User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1pre (Windows/2008022014) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: sc22wg5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.3935) Call graph generator? References: <20090129014452.0D13AC178D9@www2.open-std.org> <20090129030501.C80B3C56CF9@www2.open-std.org> <20090129091105.A40CDC178D9@www2.open-std.org> In-Reply-To: <20090129091105.A40CDC178D9@www2.open-std.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk N.M. Maclaren wrote: > > This isn't TOTALLY off-list, so please bear with me. WHICH call graph? > I assume that it is one of the static ones (i.e. A has the potential to > call B). Yes. > > The simple one consists only of the explicit calls, with no procedure > arguments. > > With procedure arguments, there is a question of which procedure should > be classed as the caller: the one that declares the external It does not do that - it only adds them for actual invocations. > or the one(s) > that call the argument. This tool effectively "clones" the called procedure when this happens, so you get lines like SS(DUMMY=FRED) and SS(DUMMY=BANANA) and in those, counts references to the dummy as references to the particular actual. I'm not sure I would have chosen to do it like that (I didn't write the tool), but I think it is a reasonable approach. > > With procedure variables, things get even hairier, That is certainly true, though in this case the English version is one release behind so does not accept procedure arguments anyway. Hmm, I'll have to go and make sure it does something reasonable... whatever that is! Cheers, -- .......................Malcolm Cohen, Nihon NAG, Tokyo.