2012/3/19 Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr>: > Hi, > > Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> But no, I'm not volunteering (I'm volunteering to do the review work). >> The above has the same issue as the "we-want-to-be-more-like-LLVM" >> stuff - it lacks the people to actually implement it, and GCC at its >> present state still has to evolve, we can't and do not want to just spend >> a complete release or two with just turning GCC upside-down. > > What David proposes looks great, but also fairly intrusive and > development-intensive. > > Perhaps a more incremental approach could be taken. For instance, I > would argue that changes to the tree and GIMPLE APIs could be made > conservatively, on the grounds that they are most likely used by > plug-ins out there. IOW, rather than a commitment to a stable API, > which would hinder the work of GCC developers, this would be an informal > agreement to not make the plug-in developers life too hard. > > In the example of name mangling, I’d just have wrapped in ‘extern "C"’ > all the headers listed in ‘PLUGIN_HEADERS’ in gcc/Makefile.in. The > rationale is that it simplifies plug-in maintenance, while not impeding > development work in 4.7.
Well, that's _all_ headers. Basically. And exactly the problem. There will be never even API compatibility between major releases of GCC with the current plugin "API". Richard.
