Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

>  > Most new gcc back-ends are private, so I don't buy that part of the
>  > argument.  And in any case nobody is talking about plug-ins for gcc
>  > backends.  We're talking about plugins at the tree/GIMPLE level.
> 
> Yeah, I know.  I'm thinking about proprietary compilers (not just 
> back-ends, optimization passes) bolted on to a gcc front-end to get
> Linux compatibility.

As we've discussed previously, we are already seeing that without
plugins: GCCfss.  Sun took gcc's frontend and attached it to their
proprietary backend.  So in my view introducing plugins will not make
a substantive difference here.


>  > When I was in the business of convincing people to pay for gcc
>  > work, I had a laundry list of general gcc improvements to sell.  I
>  > was never able to get a dime except for target specific
>  > improvements.  A plugin architecture would not make any difference
>  > to that kind of work.
> 
> No, but it might mean that entire gcc ports go away, as people who
> already have in-house compilers use them with a gcc front-end for
> Linux ports, rather than funding gcc ports.

But as you know, most gcc ports are never contributed anyhow.  Ports
that people hire Red Hat to do are contributed, but I can easily count
six gcc ports I've seen myself that were never contributed.  So again
I don't see a substantive difference here.

Ian