patch for merging graphite branch (before tuplification)

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Hello All

Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>>> You have to get a copy of the release 0.9 of PPL from:
>>> http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/
>> I see this is documented as needing (a) C++, (b) GCC 4.0.3 or later, (c)
>> GMP compiled with the C++ interface enabled.  I believe we previously
>> reached a conclusion that if GCC is made to require C++ it would work with
>> any version of GCC 3.4 or later (and did not discuss the question of the
>> GMP C++ interface).  Recall that right now the documented requirement is
>> that a cross-compiler (so all non-Ada front ends) can be built with GCC
>> 2.95 or later; Ada requires 3.4 or later; and any ISO C compiler should
>> work for bootstrapping a native compiler.
> 
> If Graphite can be disabled then the bootstrapping issue goes away as you
> can in a first step build current GCC with C++ enabled and do a second stage
> with Graphite enabled.

I also am in favor of having some stuff in GCC which use external 
libraries, provided this stuff can be disabled at configure time.

My MELT branch also uses PPL (and some other libraries, in particular 
libtldl) but AFAIK all can be entirely disabled (and is disabled by 
default) at configure time.

In addition, once the legal issues on permitting plugins are settled, 
hopefully a plugin infrastructure could be proposed to help such issues.
Actually, I would personnaly welcome that GCC would evolve in a stuff 
where the core compiler is becoming much simpler & smaller, and where 
very interesting extra features (perhaps including graphite) are as 
plugins. I hope that the long time trend would be:
a core GCC, without sophisticated optimisations, providing several 
front-ends (including C++ & Ada)& many back-ends + many plugins (several 
of them distributed within the GCC compiler itself, not separately) 
providing interesting features & optimisations.

Maybe the list of people is getting too long. I'm CC-ing the gcc@ list 
(also reply-to:) because perhaps such discussion belongs more to gcc@ 
than to gcc-patches@

I also have no idea of the GCC runtime license issues mentionned at 
previous GCC 2008 summit in june 2008 at Ottawa. Are things more clarified?

Thanks for reading
Regards.

-- 
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***