On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Niels Möller <ni...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> writes: > >> It is a false equality. The needs of plugins authors are not necessarily >> the same as the need of GCC development itself. > > I'm not so sure of that. To be concrete, can you give some examples of > things that a plugin might want to do with an interface to the > tree-abstraction in gcc, which gcc itself would never do? And vice > versa?
The question isn't what GCC developers -can- do and plugins can't do or vice-versa. The question is *why* GCC -ought- to be doing it the plugins way. [...] > Breaking source level compatibility ought to be avoided for minor > releases. But the current situation, where, due to the name mangling, it > seems difficult for a plugin to be compatible even with different > configurations of the *same* minor release of gcc, seems a bit too > inconvenient. I have read assertions from plugins people that is part of their work as plugin developers. Consequently, on this end I don't think it is problem. If plugin people think it is a problem my suggestion is: sort it out! -- Gaby
