From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-173338-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31571 invoked by alias); 2 Apr 2012 12:38:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 31563 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Apr 2012 12:38:46 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-ob0-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:38:21 +0000
Received: by obbuo13 with SMTP id uo13so2457227obb.20        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:38:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.51.73 with SMTP id i9mr12350083obo.17.1333370296796; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 05:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.92.168 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:38:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120402111723.GA27639@ours.starynkevitch.net>
References: <20120331195124.527100bb3d7e0f84d884c7cd@starynkevitch.net>	<4F78BD65.4010500@google.com>	<20120402073756.be62767e7996433f1409f39d@starynkevitch.net>	<CAAiZkiCMsVDtOWKYGmY6to2--GLE5SruPDpwQ-hDLg-1GRR-Ow@mail.gmail.com>	<20120402111723.GA27639@ours.starynkevitch.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:38:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAAiZkiB3Gs2Zc__g27fqf39KR_xekYu0rSjqDRXP9QF7w=mgdg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Plugins always enabled in GCC 4.8?
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Basile Starynkevitch <basile@starynkevitch.net>
Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
<basile@starynkevitch.net> wrote:

>> You appear to be moving in directions that may give pause to
>> those who championed better separation of concerns in GCC.
>
>
> I am not sure to understand that last sentence (I had to read it 4 times,
> with different ways of understanding it). But I certainly don't understand
> why you feel that my wish of having a collection of named and identified
> modules in GCC is not a way of wanting seperation of concerns in GCC.

Where do you take that feeling from?

-- Gaby