On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 09:32, Rafael Espindola<espind...@google.com> wrote: >> As I said, it's a minor polish issue. It may be sufficient to just have a >> note in the documentation as Basil suggested. > > I would prefer just changing the documentation too. In general I think > that plugins > should see gcc the same way a builtin pass does. If a plugin needs to > look at the > IL early in the pipeline it should be ready to work with previous errors.
Agreed. As we chatted last week, we may want to offer a simplified interface to those plugins that are never going to be integrated with the compiler. For now, plugins should get on the same roller coaster the rest of the passes are in. However, that may be more work than it's worth. It would force an API translation layer that may be burdensome to maintain. I would prefer to wait until we have more experience with plugin usage. Diego.
