This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
Cc: tromey at redhat dot com, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, Emmanuel Fleury <fleury at labri dot fr>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:01:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
References: <47317545.2070708@labri.fr> <20071107164101.GB4550@synopsys.com> <m37ikuroo2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <4731F5B6.7090404@adacore.com> <874pfwx5d3.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>

Florian Weimer wrote:

* Robert Dewar:
Tom Tromey wrote:
First, aren't we already in this situation?  There are at least 2
compilers out there that re-use parts of GCC by serializing trees and
then reading them into a different back end.
It's not obvious to me that this is consistent with the GPL ..
It requires a fairly expansionist view of copyright to make it inconsistent.

I disagree (based significantly on the proceedings of the Intergraph vs Bentley trial, which unfortunately are not easily published anywhere), but I think this thread should not go too much farther here, it is really off topic.

References:
- Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Emmanuel Fleury
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?
  - From: Florian Weimer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]