Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

Jack Howarth
Fri Sep 10 13:35:00 GMT 2010

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner <> wrote:
> >
> > But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
> > front ends, back ends, and optimizers.  So RMS never allowed any such
> > thing nor any scheme that resulted in having any file that could be
> > used for such a purpose.
> As far as I know, you can currently plug GCC FEs to a proprietary LLVM
> middle-end using llvm-gcc. It is not a possibility but a reality (read
> the proceedings of the LLVM meetings). Just no one cares, because (a)
> the result is not publicly distributed (only internally or for
> research purposes) and (b) there is zero interest on
> contributing/integrating any code back to GCC from both sides.

Huh? The dragon-egg gcc plugin to access llvm has been pubicly available
since llvm 2.7...

As to the second point, I believe that is entirely untrue (at least as
far as patches required to build dragon-egg under FSF gcc is concerned).
In the thread starting at,
it is clear that Duncan Sands is interested in some level of coordination
of dragon-egg development with FSF gcc.

> There are two issues, whether is possible technically to plug clang to
> GCC and whether is possible to create proprietary FEs to GCC. From
> Richard comments, the answer to the former is probably yes with
> perhaps less effort than Dragonegg. But that is not so important,
> because the answer to the latter is also yes right now by building a
> modified GCC (people have mentioned this in the lists).
> Cheers,
> Manuel.

More information about the Gcc mailing list