From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21532 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2007 19:35:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 21524 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2007 19:35:17 -0000 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/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:35:12 +0000 Received: from zps36.corp.google.com (zps36.corp.google.com [172.25.146.36]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id lAFJZ4Gb025359 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:35:05 GMT Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nzhi1.prod.google.com [10.36.235.1]) by zps36.corp.google.com with ESMTP id lAFJYJfS024164 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:35:02 -0800 Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i1so557599nzh for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:35:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.93.17 with SMTP id q17mr274208wab.1195155302047; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:35:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from frodo.local ( [72.14.228.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j29sm902825waf.2007.11.15.11.34.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:35:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <473C9F4E.5090402@google.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:43:00 -0000 From: Diego Novillo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joe Buck CC: Emmanuel Fleury , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ? References: <47317545.2070708@labri.fr> <20071107164101.GB4550@synopsys.com> In-Reply-To: <20071107164101.GB4550@synopsys.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00392.txt.bz2 Joe Buck wrote: > On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote: >> Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ? > > Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy > to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC. I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is, and has always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate into a proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I know that does this. In fact, much/most of the effort we have been spending in making GCC easier to maintain, necessarily translates into a system that is easier to integrate into other code bases. IMO, the benefits we gain in making GCC a more attractive code base, far outweigh the fears of someone co-opting it for their own proprietary uses. We gain nothing by holding infrastructure advances in GCC. While GCC still has the advantage of being widely used, its internal infrastructure is still relatively arcane and hard to deal with. We have already kicked it into the mid 90s, but we still have a lot of ground to cover. An antiquated and arcane infrastructure will only help turn new developers away. Diego.