This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
> In fact, it's easy. You have to write some code to translate from
> tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code
> into passes.c.
Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely "proprietary".
> So this seems to me to be a very weak argument against plugins.
> Adding plugins does not make it noticeably easier to integrate gcc's
> frontend with a proprietary compiler. And adding plugins would not
> change the issue of whether such a combination violated the GPL.
>
> Do you disagree with this assessment?
No, not in that case, but I don't see that as the only case. Another
case would be somebody who wanted to keep an optimizer proprietary by
making it a plug-in. My view is that because of the linkage with the
GCC IR, it can't be proprietary in that case, but that's the harder argument
to make legally.
> I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and
> even encourage academic researchers and students to use it. And I see
> plugins as directly supporting that goal.
I don't see that. Why is it that much harder to link in with GCC than doing
it as a plugin?