From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18773 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2007 17:10:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 18763 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2007 17:10:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from us02smtp1.synopsys.com (HELO vaxjo.synopsys.com) (198.182.60.75) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:10:17 +0000 Received: from crone.synopsys.com (crone.synopsys.com [146.225.7.23]) by vaxjo.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D7CE4FB; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:10:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by crone.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA16001; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:08:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from piper.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.11/8.12.3) with ESMTP id lAGHAAmE010891; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:10:10 -0800 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id lAGHAAf6010889; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:10:10 -0800 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:27:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Richard Kenner Cc: iant@google.com, aph@redhat.com, dnovillo@google.com, fleury@labri.fr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ? Message-ID: <20071116171010.GI22036@synopsys.com> References: <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> <10711161702.AA22436@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10711161702.AA22436@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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/msg00450.txt.bz2 On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote: > As was said before, the difficultly in people working with GCC is > primarily lack of adequate documentation. Creating a "plugin" interface > is certainly much more fun than writing documentation, but doesn't help > this issue nearly as much. Moreover, writing documentation is not a > potential legal threat while plugins are. To me, that argues strongly > against plugins and in favor of much more documentation. More documentation: a good thing. Contributions welcome. Plugins a potential legal threat: you must be using "legal threat" in some strange way I don't understand, but I don't see them as a threat at all. In any case, the two issues are orthogonal.