On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 08:27 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote: > On 12/13/07 2:39 AM, Ollie Wild wrote: > > > The lto branch is already doing this, so presumably that discussion > > was resolved (Maybe someone in the know should pipe up.). > > Yes, streaming the IL to/from disk is a resolved issue. > ... > > Diego.
I found this thread http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00735.html >> From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com> >> To: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org> >> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:26:28 -0800 >> Subject: Link-time optimzation ________________________________________________________________________ >> The GCC community has talked about link-time optimization for some time. >> ... >> We would prefer not to have this thread devolve into a discussion about >> legal and "political" issues relating to reading and writing GCC's >> internal representation. I've said publicly for a couple of years that >> GCC would need to have this ability, and, more constructively, David >> Edelsohn has talked with the FSF (both RMS and Eben Moglen) about it. >> The FSF has indicated that GCC now can explore adding this feature, >> although there are still some legal details to resolve. >> ... >> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/lto/lto.pdf >> ... Was there any more about this? I have restarted work on my COBOL front end. Based on my previous experiences writing a GCC front end I want to have as little code as possible in the same process as the GCC back end. This means passing over a file. So I would like to understand how to avoid getting into political/legal trouble when doing this. Thanks, Tim Josling
