Bernd Schmidt writes:
>> No, that means would be using the old tool named 'patch' before building
>> GCC.
>
> Or even the new tool named 'git'.
[... and note that "git apply" doesn't actually require a git repo,
and is a great (generally rather better behaved) replacement for the
"patch" command.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis skribis:
>
>> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a
>> specification and an API they agree on.
>
> I think it’s wrong to consider plug-ins as second-class citizens.
Nobody has made that asse
On 03/30/2012 10:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Ludovic Courtès
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Gabriel Dos Reis skribis:
>>
>>> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a
>>> specification and an API they agree on.
>>
>> I think it’s wrong to consider p
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis skribis:
>
>> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a
>> specification and an API they agree on.
>
> I think it’s wrong to consider plug-ins as second-class citizens.
>
> The plug-in mechanism
Hi,
Gabriel Dos Reis skribis:
> I do not think people working on plugins have come up with a
> specification and an API they agree on.
I think it’s wrong to consider plug-ins as second-class citizens.
The plug-in mechanism is just a technical means to allow people to
extend the compiler withou
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:22:28 -0400
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 3/29/12 3:01 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> > But I feel I don't wear the same hat as a plugin developer and as a GCC
> > contributor.
>
> Yes, you do. You are both a GCC contributor and a plugin developer. As
> such, you are
Le 29 mars 2012 à 21:01, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Romain Geissler
> wrote:
>> Le 29 mars 2012 à 18:06, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
>>> wrote:
Hi
Le 29 mars 2012 à 14:34, Niels Möller a
On 3/29/12 3:01 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
But I feel I don't wear the same hat as a plugin developer and as a GCC
contributor.
Yes, you do. You are both a GCC contributor and a plugin developer. As
such, you are in a unique position to know the needs of both sides.
Cleaning up the
On 03/29/2012 05:52 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:42:30 -0500
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> 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
>>
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Niels Möller wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis 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 tha
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:41:07 +0100
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> But plugins in GCC are still new and still evolving, if plugin authors
> won't help shape the API and offer their advice now then they the API
> will never be useful.
>
> Don't expect people who don't care about plugins to do all the wo
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Romain Geissler
wrote:
> Le 29 mars 2012 à 18:06, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
>> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Le 29 mars 2012 à 14:34, Niels Möller a écrit :
>>>
1. I imagine the plugin API ought to stay in plai
On 29 March 2012 17:52, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:42:30 -0500
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> 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
>> t
Gabriel Dos Reis 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-abstra
eplies, since I'm not subscribed to the list. I hope
>> I'm not being too off-topic or off-the-mark.
>>
>> Let me write down some reflections on gcc extensibility, even if I'm not
>> familiar at all with gcc internals.
>>
>> 1. I imagine the plugin AP
Le 29 mars 2012 à 18:06, Gabriel Dos Reis a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
> 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
On 03/29/2012 12:52 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
They blame nobody if their plugins break from one release to the next. They
take this
incompatibility of GCC as part of their plugins developer's work.
Again, a plugin writer by definition uses whatever interface is given to him.
Cheers.
T
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> They blame nobody if their plugins break from one release to the next. They
> take this
> incompatibility of GCC as part of their plugins developer's work.
Great! Problem solved.
-- Gaby
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:42:30 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 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 rel
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:06:11 -0500
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Le 29 mars 2012 à 14:34, Niels Möller a écrit :
>> >
>> >> 1. I imagine the plugin API o
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:06:11 -0500
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
> 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 di
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Romain Geissler
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.
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
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Niels Möller wrote:
> 1. I imagine the plugin API ought to stay in plain C, right?
>
> 2. Then there are at least two ways to think about the plugin API to,
> e.g., the gcc tree abstraction.
>
> Either one can define a C API one think the plugins will like, an
being too off-topic or off-the-mark.
>
> Let me write down some reflections on gcc extensibility, even if I'm not
> familiar at all with gcc internals.
>
> 1. I imagine the plugin API ought to stay in plain C, right?
>
> 2. Then there are at least two ways to think
I originally wrote this email as a reply to Ian Lance Taylor on a
different list, and he suggested that I send it also to the gcc list.
Please cc me on replies, since I'm not subscribed to the list. I hope
I'm not being too off-topic or off-the-mark.
Let me write down some reflecti
26 matches
Mail list logo
