Re: Converting the gcc backend to a library?

[kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)]

    (1) Making the back-end be a library, with a published API.

    I think Jeff is saying (and I agree) (2) is definitely ruled out; (1)
    is not *necessarily* ruled out.  (We [the Gcc steering committee and
    the FSF] would have to consider the pros and cons carefully - and
    possibly fine-tune the Gcc license, if required.)

I'm not sure what distinction from the present situation you are making here.
Certainly, we view the front end interface of the compiler as an API and
I think everybody agrees that the more we document ("publish", as you say)
the interface the better.

So it would seem the only issue is whether the bulk of GCC could be linked as
a shared library.  But that seems marginal on both sides: most machines are
single-user nowadays and memory is cheap, so the benefit of having it as
a shared library is trivial (the number of times the use count of such an
image would be greater than one is negligable) and the "risk" of doing such
from a GPL point of view is also trivial because it doesn't affect the legal
standing of the software in any way.