This is the mail archive of the 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: GCC 5? (was Re: GCC 4.7.0RC: Mangled names in cc1)

2012/3/19 Ludovic Courtès <>:
> Hi,
> Richard Guenther <> skribis:
>> But no, I'm not volunteering (I'm volunteering to do the review work).
>> The above has the same issue as the "we-want-to-be-more-like-LLVM"
>> stuff - it lacks the people to actually implement it, and GCC at its
>> present state still has to evolve, we can't and do not want to just spend
>> a complete release or two with just turning GCC upside-down.
> What David proposes looks great, but also fairly intrusive and
> development-intensive.
> Perhaps a more incremental approach could be taken. ?For instance, I
> would argue that changes to the tree and GIMPLE APIs could be made
> conservatively, on the grounds that they are most likely used by
> plug-ins out there. ?IOW, rather than a commitment to a stable API,
> which would hinder the work of GCC developers, this would be an informal
> agreement to not make the plug-in developers life too hard.
> In the example of name mangling, I’d just have wrapped in ‘extern "C"’
> all the headers listed in ‘PLUGIN_HEADERS’ in gcc/ ?The
> rationale is that it simplifies plug-in maintenance, while not impeding
> development work in 4.7.

Well, that's _all_ headers.  Basically.  And exactly the problem.  There
will be never even API compatibility between major releases of GCC
with the current plugin "API".


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