This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc extensibility
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Niels Möller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com> writes:
>> It is a false equality. ?The needs of plugins authors are not necessarily
>> the same as the need of GCC development itself.
> I'm not so sure of that. To be concrete, can you give some examples of
> things that a plugin might want to do with an interface to the
> tree-abstraction in gcc, which gcc itself would never do? And vice
The question isn't what GCC developers -can- do and plugins can't do
or vice-versa. The question is *why* GCC -ought- to be doing it the plugins
> Breaking source level compatibility ought to be avoided for minor
> releases. But the current situation, where, due to the name mangling, it
> seems difficult for a plugin to be compatible even with different
> configurations of the *same* minor release of gcc, seems a bit too
I have read assertions from plugins people that is part of their work as plugin
developers. Consequently, on this end I don't think it is problem. If
plugin people think it is a problem my suggestion is: sort it out!