Defining a common plugin machinery

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH]

Chris Lattner wrote:
> 
> 
> Is the plugin machinery intended to eventually allow new (GPL 
> compatible) backends to be used?  It would be nice to make llvm-gcc be a 
> plugin.


 From what I remember of the plugin BOFS & the Steering Committee Q&A 
sessions at last GCC summit permitting GPL-ed plugins is one of the 
intent of plugins.

AFAIK, the concern is -on the opposite of your intents- how to make 
GPL-ed plugins (legally) easy, and proprietary plugins (legally) 
impossible, but I am not a lawyer, I know nothing about US law, and I 
don't know what is happening inside the steering committee or the FSF 
regarding plugins.

The technical questions about how to make plugin practicals are 
precisely the scope of the current thread on the gcc@ mailing list.

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} ***