On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:06:11 -0500 > Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler >> <romain.geiss...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Le 29 mars 2012 à 14:34, Niels Möller a écrit : >> > >> >> 1. I imagine the plugin API ought to stay in plain C, right? >> > >> > I don't know if this was already discussed and if the community >> > ended up with a clear answer for this question. If it's not the case >> > i would prefer a plugin interface in C++, for the same reasons it >> > was decided to slowly move the internals to C++. >> > >> >> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a >> specification and an API they agree on. > > > I believe plugin makers (if you can count me amongst them) don't have at all > this > approach. By definition, a plugin should work with whatever interface a given > GCC release > makes available. Plugins people by definition cannot alter or improve the > interface that > GCC is giving to them (otherwise, they are no more plugins people, but GCC > contributors).
I suspect that if plugins people want to make progress on this recurring theme, they will have to come up with a specification and an API. Otherwise, they have only themselves to blame if their plugins break from release to release. -- Gaby
