This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: Progress on GCC plugins ?
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Joe Buck'" <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, "'Emmanuel Fleury'" <fleury at labri dot fr>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:48:03 -0000
- Subject: RE: Progress on GCC plugins ?
- References: <47317545.2070708@labri.fr> <20071107164101.GB4550@synopsys.com>
On 07 November 2007 16:41, 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.
>
> If proponents can come up with good arguments about how the plugin
> project can be structured to avoid this risk, that would help.
I don't understand: why wouldn't designing it so that they have to be
implemented as DSOs and hence are covered by the
anything-directly-linked-in-is-GPL'd clause do the job? Or is the concern
that people will write trivial marshalling plugins and ship all the data out
across a pipe or socket to some proprietary code and then only release source
for their shim layers?
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....