On 13 September 2010 12:30, Paolo Bonzini <bonz...@gnu.org> wrote: > On 09/10/2010 03:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáńez 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 wouldn't 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...
What will be gained and what will be lost in your opinion? Cheers, Manuel.
