> From: Alex Bennée [mailto:alex.ben...@linaro.org] > Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> writes: > > <snip> > >> Now I can see arguments against it from an interface complexity point of > >> view but I think plugins should get access to the TCG functions so they > >> can generate their own op sequences if need be and not have to call a > >> helper at all if they don't need to. > > > > I strongly disagree -- plugins should not have access to details > > of QEMU internals that might change from version to version, and > > definitely not access to generating their own TCG code. > > In terms of the wider problem about exposing internals that might change > from version to version I wonder if we should care? Is the plugin API > one where we should provide ABI stability or should we take the approach > that Linux does and say if your code lives out-of-tree then it's your > problem to keep up if/when we change.
Then one can just omit the plugins and embed the analysis code into QEMU. The idea behind the plugins is making the maintenance less time-consuming by providing the stable interface. Pavel Dovgalyuk
