On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher<stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
<ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
It's the question of what one means by "plug-in interface". If you
view it as no different from the existing llvm-gcc, then you're
basically saying we already HAVE a plug-in interface. So then what are
we talking about?
Obviously not about the same thing.
llvm-gcc is GCC front ends with LLVM as a back end.
The idea here is clang with GCC as a back end.
They are equivalent in the sense that I would understand why GCC would
allow the former but it would fight against the latter.
Hmm, my impression was that GCC can mostly gain from clang-gcc, and only
lose from llvm-gcc...
Paolo
