On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Romain Geissler <romain.geiss...@gmail.com> wrote: > Le 29 mars 2012 à 18:06, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit : > >> 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. Which makes any talk >> of restricting GCC's own evolution premature if not pointless. > > I didn't mean the choice of C or C++ for the future plugin API may > in any way alter the own GCC evolution. The API only consists in > a bunch of stable wrappers to the unstable internals. Once such > an API exists, that won't be hard to update the impacted wrappers > to follow that changes, and thus it would have only minor impact on > the internals evolution. >
From past discussions, I gather that the plugins people want an uncompromising access to every bits of GCC internals (hence resist any notion of specification and API) and don't want to see evolution of GCC that might break their working plugins, for example using C++ because their own plugins are written in C. Yet, we also receive lectures on modules and what they should look like in GCC. I have concluded that unless they sort out their internal inconsistencies, there is no hope of seeing progress any time son. -- Gaby
