> In fact, it's easy. You have to write some code to translate from > tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code > into passes.c.
Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely "proprietary". > So this seems to me to be a very weak argument against plugins. > Adding plugins does not make it noticeably easier to integrate gcc's > frontend with a proprietary compiler. And adding plugins would not > change the issue of whether such a combination violated the GPL. > > Do you disagree with this assessment? No, not in that case, but I don't see that as the only case. Another case would be somebody who wanted to keep an optimizer proprietary by making it a plug-in. My view is that because of the linkage with the GCC IR, it can't be proprietary in that case, but that's the harder argument to make legally. > I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and > even encourage academic researchers and students to use it. And I see > plugins as directly supporting that goal. I don't see that. Why is it that much harder to link in with GCC than doing it as a plugin?
