On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> wrote:
> Perhaps a more incremental approach could be taken. For instance, I > would argue that changes to the tree and GIMPLE APIs could be made > conservatively, on the grounds that they are most likely used by > plug-ins out there. Hmm, this is exactly the argument that people objected to back in the days when there were talks of plug-ins. The existence of plugins should not be a hindrance on evolving GCC internals. > IOW, rather than a commitment to a stable API, > which would hinder the work of GCC developers, this would be an informal > agreement to not make the plug-in developers life too hard. -- Gaby
