From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1137 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2007 16:58:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 1128 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2007 16:58:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.watson.ibm.com (HELO igw2.watson.ibm.com) (129.34.20.6) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:58:48 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.watson.ibm.com (mailhub3.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.45]) by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/8.13.1-2007-10-16 igw) with ESMTP id lAGH0XLk020910; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:00:33 -0500 Received: from mailhub3.watson.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailhub3.watson.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/8.13.1-01-23-2007-Delivery) with ESMTP id lAGGwdcL021487; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:58:44 -0500 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (makai.watson.ibm.com [9.2.216.144]) by mailhub3.watson.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/8.13.1-01-23-2007-IMSS) with ESMTP id lAGGwXPf021451; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:58:33 -0500 Received: from watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX5.3/8.13.4/8.13.4/03-06-2002) with ESMTP id lAGGwMoq031400; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:58:27 -0500 Message-Id: <200711161658.lAGGwMoq031400@makai.watson.ibm.com> To: Andrew Haley cc: Ian Lance Taylor , kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner), dnovillo@google.com, Joe.Buck@synopsys.com, fleury@labri.fr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ? In-reply-to: <18237.51292.763097.467863@zebedee.pink> References: <47317545.2070708@labri.fr> <20071107164101.GB4550@synopsys.com> <473C9F4E.5090402@google.com> <10711152024.AA00627@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <18236.49757.881704.165655@zebedee.pink> <18237.25889.543937.924615@zebedee.pink> <18237.49248.609704.541703@zebedee.pink> <18237.51292.763097.467863@zebedee.pink> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Haley message dated "Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:42:04 +0000." Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:16:00 -0000 From: David Edelsohn X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00447.txt.bz2 >>>>> Andrew Haley writes: >> I have a different fear: that gcc will become increasing >> irrelevant, as more and more new programmers learn to work on >> alternative free compilers instead. That is neutral with regard to >> freedom, but it will tend to lose the many years of experience >> which have been put into gcc. In my view, if we can't even get >> ourselves together to permit something as simple as plugins with an >> unstable API, then we deserve to lose. Andrew> OK. Well, that's your view. I don't believe that the presence or Andrew> absence of plugins will make one iota of differebce to mainstream use Andrew> of gcc. The concern is not a first-order effect, but a second-order effect. GCC will improve more and faster if more developers are involved. Plug-ins will encourage more research and development of GCC -- more features and benefits. An improved GCC will attract more users. In my experience, most users prefer GCC because it is free, generates code with "good-enough" performance, supports many architectures and languages, defines a uniform C language, and is distributed with an "open source-compatible" license. I do not believe that the GPL or the Free Software Foundation's goals are near the top of the reasons for most users. If developers and users find that another free compiler satisfies those requirements better, I suspect developers and users would start migrating away. As Ian said, that ultimately would not hurt software freedom; it might hurt Free Software, and it definitely would hurt the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation. David