> In fact, it's easy.  You have to write some code to translate from
> tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code
> into passes.c.

Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely "proprietary".

> So this seems to me to be a very weak argument against plugins.
> Adding plugins does not make it noticeably easier to integrate gcc's
> frontend with a proprietary compiler.  And adding plugins would not
> change the issue of whether such a combination violated the GPL.
> 
> Do you disagree with this assessment?

No, not in that case, but I don't see that as the only case.  Another
case would be somebody who wanted to keep an optimizer proprietary by
making it a plug-in.  My view is that because of the linkage with the
GCC IR, it can't be proprietary in that case, but that's the harder argument
to make legally.

> I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and
> even encourage academic researchers and students to use it.  And I see
> plugins as directly supporting that goal.  

I don't see that.  Why is it that much harder to link in with GCC than doing
it as a plugin?

Reply via email to