This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [plugins] [patch] Initial implementation of GCC plugin support
- From: Benjamin Smedberg <benjamin at smedbergs dot us>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch dot net>, Le-Chun Wu <lcwu at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Taras Glek <tglek at mozilla dot com>, Grigori Fursin <grigori dot fursin at inria dot fr>, Zbigniew Chamski <zbigniew dot chamski at gmail dot com>, Sean Callanan <spyffe at cs dot sunysb dot edu>, Cupertino Miranda <cupertinomiranda at gmail dot com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:16:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: [plugins] [patch] Initial implementation of GCC plugin support
- References: <82091ad70902201351y79d58552nf90b2359d8b40e0a@mail.gmail.com> <499F6AC3.4060807@starynkevitch.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902210251530.21964@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2/20/09 9:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>
>> One could also imagine that GCC plugins could define a
>> const char gcc_version_expected_by_plugin[]="4.4.0";
>> and some additional code just after the dlopen to warn against plugin
>> incompatibility. This could be implemented later (but I definitely believe it
>> is very useful).
>
> It should be the full version string (including the date, for GCC trunk),
> and the target triplet, and maybe the GCC configure options as well, and a
> fatal_error (or an error that causes no code from the plugin to be
> executed) not a warning. I consider this a prerequisite for merging
> plugin support to trunk, but not for initial development on a branch.
Why is it necessary to be so strict? We've found, when tracking 4.3.x, that
the plugin has not required any changes at all... it would be very useful
for us to be able to ship the same plugin for all versions of Fedora Core X,
or Debian X, rather than tie it so tightly to a particular minor version.
Yes, it *could* break, but I think that's a choice we'd be willing to make.
- --BDS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iD8DBQFJowQuSSwGp5sTYNkRApUVAJ0dGhTTg64NcmcdWAkJPKwWsxZvqwCfTwjv
TKYce2yiDSOj0NdfJiTOLQU=
=KzYh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----