Ok. I am fine with that. Actually, it requires minor modifications to the GCC anyway, so I can just keep them as patches for the ICI/MILEPOST GCC ;) ...
Cheers, Grigori > -----Original Message----- > From: Taras Glek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:29 AM > To: Grigori Fursin > Cc: 'Basile STARYNKEVITCH'; 'Brendon Costa'; 'Hugh Leather'; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; > 'Sean Callanan'; > 'Cupertino Miranda'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Taras Glek'; > 'Diego Novillo'; 'Mike > O'Boyle' > Subject: Re: Defining a common plugin machinery > > Grigori Fursin wrote: > > Thanks, Taras! > > > > I slightly updated this page, i.e. we would like to be able to load plugins > > through environment variables to be able to optimize programs transparently > > as it is done in MILEPOST GCC (without Makefile modifications). By the way, > > we plan to extend the Interactive Compilation Interface by the end of this > > year > > to access most of the internal transformations, however it will be > > based on the event and call-back mechanisms, which is similar to your > > GCC API proposal so we shouldn't have lots of compatibility problems > > if we later agree on the same plugin system... > > > Personally I'm against the env var idea as it would make it harder to > figure out what's going on. I think someone mentioned that the same > effect could be achieved using spec files. > > Taras
