gcc extensibility

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Niels Möller <nisse@lysator.liu.se> wrote:

> 1. I imagine the plugin API ought to stay in plain C, right?
>
> 2. Then there are at least two ways to think about the plugin API to,
>   e.g., the gcc tree abstraction.
>
>   Either one can define a C API one think the plugins will like, and
>   then implement that on top of the internal C++ interfaces. These will
>   be small wrapper functions, which lets the internal interfaces evolve
>   without affecting the plugins.
>
>   Or one sticks to a single "unified" tree API, to be used *both*
>   internally and by plugins.
>
>   I suspect the second option is the right one, because it brings some
>   equality between plugin authors and gcc developers.

It is a false equality.  The needs of plugins authors are not necessarily
the same as the need of GCC development itself.

You really do not want the existence of plugins to hinder (internal)
evolution of GCC itself.

-- Gaby