This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Plug-in Framework ready to port
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
- Cc: Sean Callanan <spyffe at cs dot sunysb dot edu>, Taras Glek <tglek at mozilla dot com>, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch dot net>, Grigori Fursin <grigori dot fursin at inria dot fr>, Le-Chun Wu <lcwu at google dot com>, Brendon Costa <bcosta at avdat dot com dot au>, Emmanuel Fleury <fleury at labri dot fr>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:24:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC Plug-in Framework ready to port
- References: <m3iqnwwqrl.fsf@google.com> <EFC35277-A978-4B6E-9F06-DC56C1409B99@cs.sunysb.edu> <b798aad50901310511o3884804fs2f5392e509ab14df@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 23:01, Sean Callanan <spyffe@cs.sunysb.edu> wrote:
>
>> We've been off the ML for some time, but we're still out there.
>> Is this something that is wanted, or have we been overtaken
>> by events and should be porting to someone else's
>> implementation?
>
> Thanks for raising the issue. The last time we discussed this
> issue (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-09/msg00292.html), we did
> not reach a final decision, but now that the licensing issues
> have been clarified I think it's time we created a branch for
> future merging.
>
> I understand that there are several branches or patchsets for the
> various approaches. We clearly need to converge into a single
> one. My proposal is:
>
> 1- Agree on a common API and document it in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI
Note that even for this taks being able to compare what the existing frameworks
implement (with code) would help a lot. After all, source code tells more
than 1000 "design" words ;)
Richard.