Re: [Re: new plugin events]

[Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>> All of which terribly reminds me of the painful (for end users, ISVs, 
>> IHVs, OSVs,...) situation we have with the Linux kernel and out-of-tree 
>> modules.
> I do agree with the similarity. But is that situation [of today's linux 
> kernel modules?] really so painful??

Quite, as far as out-of-tree modules go.  In tree, things are different.

> So perhaps GCC plugins are better than no plugins at all. Only time can 
> tell.

Oh, I didn't say plugins (or kernel modules) are undesirable, let alone
bad.

> And if plugins are not that important, adding more hooks (so perhaps 
> removing some of them later) is not really important neither (so I am 
> even more confused that we are debating a few new hooks so much, and 
> putting more energy in discussions than in patches). If plugins are not 
> a success, we could eventually remove entirely the plugin support in GCC 
> 5.0 (or even 4.6). [I have no idea of who will decide that, and I have 
> no idea of who decided that GCC can have plugins. Perhaps the Steering 
> Commitee, or RMS himself???

Not RMS for sure, and pretty much not the steering committee unless there 
is strong disagreement among the primarily responsible parties (= the 
technical maintainers).

> Are there any objective measures of the temperature of a mailing list 
> :-) :-) ? ? ?

Not that I'd know of, but the GCC lists are extremely harmless nearly all 
of the time (and this discussion is still quite on the harmless side of 
things).

> Now my mood is that is is quite funny to discuss all that. I am enjoying 
> it. :-) :-)

Happy to hear that. :-)

Gerald