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 extensibility

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
<> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:06:11 -0500
> Gabriel Dos Reis <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
>> <> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Le 29 mars 2012 à 14:34, Niels Möller a écrit :
>> >
>> >> 1. I imagine the plugin API ought to stay in plain C, right?
>> >
>> > I don't know if this was already discussed and if the community
>> > ended up with a clear answer for this question. If it's not the case
>> > i would prefer a plugin interface in C++, for the same reasons it
>> > was decided to slowly move the internals to C++.
>> >
>> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a
>> specification and an API they agree on.
> I believe plugin makers (if you can count me amongst them) don't have at all this
> approach. By definition, a plugin should work with whatever interface a given GCC release
> makes available. Plugins people by definition cannot alter or improve the interface that
> GCC is giving to them (otherwise, they are no more plugins people, but GCC contributors).

I suspect that if plugins people want to make progress on this
recurring theme, they
will have to come up with a specification and an API.  Otherwise, they have only
themselves to blame if their plugins break from release to release.

-- Gaby

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