>>>>> "Bernd" == Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bernd> I must admit I don't understand the upside. I've always thought of Bernd> plugins as something proprietary programs need because their source Bernd> isn't open. Everybody explained about the existing free software that has plugins. But, I thought I'd mention a few use cases for plugins. The biggest benefit of a plugin system is that you can add things to the compiler without requiring all your users to build their own compiler. E.g., Mozilla developers have said before (even earlier in this thread) that they would like to be able to run Mozilla-specific analysis passes over their code, say before checkin. Probably this consists of a bunch of warning checks that are suitable for Mozilla but not suitable for inclusion in GCC. With a plugin system they have the option of providing "Mozilla GCC plugin for Fedora 9", or whatever, and avoiding the mess of "to build Mozilla first you have to build GCC with patch X". Bernd> In my view, plugins will bitrot quickly as GCC's interface Bernd> changes; and they won't even help with the learning curve - Bernd> does anyone believe for a second you won't have to understand Bernd> compiler internals to write a plugin? Plugins are about deployment, not development. They don't make writing the code much simpler. That is why we can argue that the risk they pose is small: they don't make it significantly simpler to make a proprietary GCC. Tom
