On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 23:01, Sean Callanan <spy...@cs.sunysb.edu> wrote: > >> We've been off the ML for some time, but we're still out there. >> Is this something that is wanted, or have we been overtaken >> by events and should be porting to someone else's >> implementation? > > Thanks for raising the issue. The last time we discussed this > issue (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-09/msg00292.html), we did > not reach a final decision, but now that the licensing issues > have been clarified I think it's time we created a branch for > future merging. > > I understand that there are several branches or patchsets for the > various approaches. We clearly need to converge into a single > one. My proposal is: > > 1- Agree on a common API and document it in > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI
Note that even for this taks being able to compare what the existing frameworks implement (with code) would help a lot. After all, source code tells more than 1000 "design" words ;) Richard.
