On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Ludovic Courtès >> <ludovic.cour...@inria.fr> wrote: >> >>> What about sticking to the current “API” instead, and explicitly marking >>> as internal those parts that core developers know are still in flux? >> >> A guarantee of perpetual discussions of the same topic, over and over. >> (meh, GCC-x.y.z just broke my plugins; this is unacceptable, blah blah bah.) > > Yeah. Btw, the alternative to a stable plugin API is embedded support of > a scripting language (python, guile, etc.). That's of course just another > supposed-to-be stable "plugin API". Both are sufficient for introspection > and instrumentation tasks (a good test if the API is powerful enough is > to implement mudflap with it).
Exactly right. I had some hope that the plugins people would coalesce behind David M.'s proposal as a starting point, but now I don't know if the plugin case has any merit anymore :-/ -- Gaby
