Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?

[Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>]

Richard Kenner wrote:

> 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 don't think we can argue legalities here.  All we can do is say that 
if they are using plug-ins, they are forced to include GPL'd header 
files and link against GPL'd code.  The rest is up to the FSF legal folks.

> I don't see that.  Why is it that much harder to link in with GCC than doing
> it as a plugin?

Limited time and steep learning curves.  Typically, researchers are 
interested in rapid-prototyping to keep the paper mill going.  Plug-ins 
offers a simple method for avoiding the latencies of repeated bootstrap 
cycles.

Several projects will survive the initial prototyping stages and become 
techniques we can apply in industrial settings.  We want to attract 
that.  Plus we want to attract the grad students that did the research 
and graduate with a favourable attitude towards using GCC in their 
future career.


Diego.