On 6 July 2010 23:05, Grigori Fursin <gfur...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't disagree with your comments too, Manuel. > > I spent some years developing plugin framework for pass selection and > reordering, and later we managed to get minimal hooks to mainline GCC based on > our needs. Of course, I personally would like to see a coherent and stable API > for most of the parts of GCC, but as you said it will not happen itself. > Still I believe > that through gradual API-zation of different parts of GCC, there will be an > eventual > convergence to the global and stable API ...
Yes, but I would like our language to explicitly encourage external forces to make this happen. Even despite (perceived or real) resistance from "the powers that decide" in GCC, progress happens when enough people push for it (in the right way and with the right force, just pushing will get you nowhere). So I would prefer that GCC developers do not say "We want to provide an API" when what is actually meant is "We will be happy if people contribute patches towards providing an API". The first gives the impression that people wishing for such API just have to sit and wait. When nothing happens, they will feel frustrated and betrayed. The latter invites those same people to scratch their itch by working together with the GCC community. "Together" means progressively and interactively, dumping a complete API design+huge patch will certainly fail. Cheers, Manuel.
