"Kjetil S. Matheussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote: > >> >> Neil Jerram: >>> >>> Luis Araujo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> > Hello everyone , how are you? >>> >>> Hi Luis! >>> >>> Thanks for posting this proposal. I haven't read every detail yet, >>> but have one initial query, and would be interested in your thoughts. >>> >>> It seems like it would be a big job to write a C parser in Guile, and >>> it also seems that the really interesting results would flow from what >>> one could do with the parser output - but that the existence of the >>> parser on its own would not be that exciting. >>> >>> Therefore I'm wondering if there isn't already a C parser - >>> implemented in some other language - that you could use to work first >>> on the interesting possible applications of having a C parser. >>> >>> This is all assuming, of course, that there is a C parser available >>> somewhere that would generate the right kind of output, and I haven't >>> actually researched that. But it seems to me that the advantages of >>> doing things this way round would be that >>> >>> - it would bring concrete advantages to Guile more quickly >>> >>> - the process of working on applications would probably make clear >>> whether a Guile-implemented C parser would provide extra benefits, >>> and would probably indicate what kind of parser interface and/or >>> output would be most useful and convenient. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> >> For me it sounds like you would achieve exactly the same just >> by combining the output of either swig[1] or gwrap[2] and >> feed it into eval-c[3-4]. Perhaps 5-6 hours of work, probably >> less... >> >> [1] http://www.swig.org >> [2] http://www.nongnu.org/g-wrap/ >> [3] http://snd.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/snd/cvs-snd/eval-c.scm >> [4] http://www.notam02.no/~kjetism/sndrt_lac2008.pdf >> >> > > Also see this mail from december: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02034.html
In general terms, this - i.e. duplicating what can already be done - is my concern too. From a very quick googling session today, I also came across sparse (http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/devel/sparse/), and I wonder whether you/we could get more mileage from using (and contributing to) that, instead of from creating a new implementation. Luis, have you considered using and building upon these existing technologies? If you have, can you say more to justify your particular proposed approach? I think that will help to attract support from GNU project members who will vote on the available applications. Regards, Neil
