Le 29 mars 2012 à 21:01, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit : > 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.
I completely agree (for my own, I don't ask for full featured API, and prioritize any internal enhancement over plugin API enhancement)
