dragonegg in FSF gcc?

[Andrew Pinski]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are already plugins in the FSF gcc source tree. Well, OK, just
> one (lto-plugin) but there aren't very many plugins at the moment that
> are suitable for inclusion in the FSF tree (i.e. not as tightly tied
> to a GCC feature that GCC itself can't work fully without it).

Except lto-plugin is a plugin for the gold linker and not for GCC.  Oh
and the linker has a more stable ABI already because of the way
plugins are implemented there.

I think most plugins should be done just to experiment with and real
passes should become integrated fully and not a plugin at all.  This
was the same argument I had the last time about plugin database.

>
> IMHO the nature of the DragonEgg plugin makes it unsuitable for
> inclusion in the FSF gcc source tree, ever.

It belongs with LLVM sources if anywhere.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski