From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31125 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2009 18:59:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 31115 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Oct 2009 18:59:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:59:33 +0000 Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n9SIxUYu000408 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:59:30 GMT Received: from pzk10 (pzk10.prod.google.com [10.243.19.138]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n9SIwdjE012239 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:59:28 -0700 Received: by pzk10 with SMTP id 10so794198pzk.19 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:59:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.247.6 with SMTP id u6mr1485203wfh.181.1256756367395; Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:59:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AE7014A.1000903@starynkevitch.net> References: <4AE6E471.4020200@starynkevitch.net> <84fc9c000910270518s147e0cc4t7f1cd53049c5d590@mail.gmail.com> <4AE6E5D0.4010401@starynkevitch.net> <4AE7014A.1000903@starynkevitch.net> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <38a0d8450910281159q5866e8d8y3caf1af11d9c40da@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: plugin hooks From: Rafael Espindola To: Basile STARYNKEVITCH Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Richard Guenther , GCC Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00593.txt.bz2 > I believe there is a strong chicken & egg issue here. Ian is suggesting t= hat > hooks should be added only when an existing plugin would need them, but I > believe that on the contrary plugins won't appear if they don't have a > sufficient set of hooks. People won't even bother to make plugins if they > feel the set of hooks is blantly unsufficient. [They will either > experiment on their own GCC branch, or avoid GCC entirely, for instance > using LLVM instead]. But working on one's branch is much more painful > than coding a plugin! I don't see a chicken and egg problem. Your work on making the GC accessible to plugins is a good example why it is not :-) > I have a concrete example here: plugin-specific pragmas (see > PLUGIN_REGISTER_PRAGMA on http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/plugin%20hook for > details) > > I have two imaginary use cases here. Sorry, the point is precisely that they should be concrete :-) If you are actually coding a plugin and get to the stage "ok, now I need a new hook", please send a patch adding the hook and a description of what the plugin is trying to do. Cheers, --=20 Rafael =C3=81vila de Esp=C3=ADndola