Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Most new gcc back-ends are private, so I don't buy that part of the > > > argument. And in any case nobody is talking about plug-ins for gcc > > > backends. We're talking about plugins at the tree/GIMPLE level. > > > > Yeah, I know. I'm thinking about proprietary compilers (not just > > back-ends, optimization passes) bolted on to a gcc front-end to get > > Linux compatibility. > > As we've discussed previously, we are already seeing that without > plugins: GCCfss. Sun took gcc's frontend and attached it to their > proprietary backend. So in my view introducing plugins will not make > a substantive difference here.
Well, yeah, but no-one ever said it wouldn't be possible without plugins. > > > When I was in the business of convincing people to pay for gcc > > > work, I had a laundry list of general gcc improvements to sell. I > > > was never able to get a dime except for target specific > > > improvements. A plugin architecture would not make any difference > > > to that kind of work. > > > > No, but it might mean that entire gcc ports go away, as people who > > already have in-house compilers use them with a gcc front-end for > > Linux ports, rather than funding gcc ports. > > But as you know, most gcc ports are never contributed anyhow. Sure, but they are still free software: if the compiler gets distributed, so does its source code. Of couse, assigning copyright to FSF is nice, but freedom is much more important. > Ports that people hire Red Hat to do are contributed, but I can > easily count six gcc ports I've seen myself that were never > contributed. > So again I don't see a substantive difference here. I guess it depends on what you mean by "substantive". As I said, I suspect that if it were easier to decouple the gcc front-end from the back-end and to maintain the resulting compiler, there would be fewer free compilers. And no, neither of us can prove it without doing the experiment. I insist, however, that when it comes to a change that potentially reduces freedom, the burden of proof -- or at least of evidence -- is on those wanting to make the change. Andrew. -- Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
