On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 01:19:06PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2...@3:03 PM, Duncan Sands <baldr...@free.fr> wrote:
> > Hi Basile,
> >
> >> I tend to be quite happy with the idea of dragonegg being a good GCC
> >> plugin, since it is a good illustration of the plugin feature.
> >
> > I think Jack wasn't suggesting that dragonegg should be changed to not be
> > a plugin any more. I think he was suggesting that it should live in the gcc
> > repository rather than the LLVM repository.
>
> So, no offense, but the suggestion here is to make this subversive
> (for FSF GCC) plugin part of FSF GCC? What is the benefit of this for
> GCC? I don't see any. I just see a plugin trying to piggy-back on the
> hard work of GCC front-end developers and negating the efforts of
> those working on the middle ends and back ends.
>
> Ciao!
> Steven
>
Steven,
Invoking the term 'subversive' seems rather strong
for utilizing a feature added by the FSF gcc developers
themselves. Rather than viewing dragon-egg as some sort
of lamprey which is feeding off of the FSF gcc project,
we should welcome the competition from a direct comparison
of alternative back/middle ends (not fear it).
One could also make an argument that it is in the best
interest of FSF gcc to do so. Isn't better to keep all
of the alternative front-end developers (gfortran, ada,
etc) within the FSF gcc tent rather than forcing the
creation of competing clang fortran and ada projects.
Your view seems a tad short-sighted.
Jack
ps I've watched FSF gcc development for awhile now
and have become a bit concerned that it is slowing
tending towards a gnu-linux mono-culture (through
no real fault of its own). There should be every effort
made to keep as many alternative platforms in the
picture (even if these end up being supported through
plugins).
