Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>]

Richard Kenner wrote:

> Therefore, I think it's important for us to make it as
> technically hard as possible for people to do such a linkage by readin and
> writing tree or communicating as different libraries or DLLs.  I'm very
> much against any sort of "plug in" precisely for this reason.

That's the line of reasoning that I find weak.  It is, in fact, 
extremely simple to integrate GCC into another compiler.  All you need 
to do is insert a gimple or RTL converter somewhere in passes.c.  Having 
plug-ins will not make this step any easier.

If a third party is willing to violate the GPL, the presence of a 
plug-in infrastructure will _not_ make their job significantly easier.

> That depends on the importance you attach to the philosophy of free
> software.

That's precisely the reason why I think it is imperative for us to keep 
improving GCC's internal architecture.  If we offer a solid compiler 
framework for people to use, we will increase its attractiveness to 
universities and research institutions, which are the very pools where 
future compiler engineers will come from.  That will help the long-term 
survival of the project.

It is very easy for us to make code developed using plug-ins to be 
covered by the GPL.  They will be using GCC header files, after all.


Diego.