This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: using plugin and lto: problem linking c-pragma symbol
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Basile Starynkevitch <basile at starynkevitch dot net>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Pierre Vittet <piervit at pvittet dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:55:20 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: using plugin and lto: problem linking c-pragma symbol
- References: <4DE3BD83.6060702@pvittet.com> <BANLkTi=Q_Y98meB_Lu5bT+DEwp6bLJiSKQ@mail.gmail.com> <20110530194406.b8e9a454.basile@starynkevitch.net> <BANLkTin+cDhtnDwjPFN=S4Wqz+zeFC1Sfw@mail.gmail.com> <20110530231839.0d8d0eeb.basile@starynkevitch.net> <BANLkTimhTPy1APxX40fTCMi3J+u6Ljf=Hg@mail.gmail.com> <20110531191705.21934344.basile@starynkevitch.net> <BANLkTimH+sh+08+bYx8g+qcm_Kw44P2W4A@mail.gmail.com> <20110601060349.214453dc.basile@starynkevitch.net>
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> In my view, you are talking of the mythical
> ModularGCC project,
While there is a serious problem with a lack of reviewers reviewing
modularization patches (such as Joern's patch to avoid target.h including
tm.h, now in its fourth ping
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00307.html>), it's anything
but mythical.
> which should be a mega-patch,
Nonsense. It should be hundreds, maybe thousands of separate incremental
patches. While, for example, there shouldn't be an exactly one-to-one
conversion of the 716 remaining target macros into hooks, 716 patches
would be a much more appropriate conversion than one mega-patch.
> and I never saw it on
> gcc-patches@ so far.
Then you can't have been paying attention to gcc-patches over the past
decade. There have been thousands of patches cleaning up some aspect of
compiler internals rather than directly changing the compiler's behavior,
and many of those have been improving modularity. If you want
modularization, insulting all the people who have been working on it by
calling their work mythical is not the way to go about it, and nor is
complaining about the lack of modularization.
Instead, demonstrate the utility of plugins by writing plugins to do such
things as understanding inter-header dependencies and working out what
source files actually depend on what headers, or automatically assisted
conversion of target macros to hooks. (I'm not convinced plugins are the
best tool for this, but I'm sure appropriate tools would help. So if you
wish to be an effective advocate for plugins, stop talking about them in
isolation and produce real self-contained modularization patches to GCC
that can be reviewed on their own merits - then explain how the use of
plugins was what allowed you to produce a hundred 1000-line patches in a
day, and to revise the whole hundred-patch series quickly in response to
review comments. Once you have concrete plugins of real use in improving
GCC, the patches to GCC to allow those plugins to be used will be of a lot
more interest.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com