On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:21:09PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > There are already plugins in the FSF gcc source tree. Well, OK, just
> > one (lto-plugin) but there aren't very many plugins at the moment that
> > are suitable for inclusion in the FSF tree (i.e. not as tightly tied
> > to a GCC feature that GCC itself can't work fully without it).
>
> Except lto-plugin is a plugin for the gold linker and not for GCC. Oh
> and the linker has a more stable ABI already because of the way
> plugins are implemented there.
>
> I think most plugins should be done just to experiment with and real
> passes should become integrated fully and not a plugin at all. This
> was the same argument I had the last time about plugin database.
>
> >
> > IMHO the nature of the DragonEgg plugin makes it unsuitable for
> > inclusion in the FSF gcc source tree, ever.
>
> It belongs with LLVM sources if anywhere.
I think the idea was that it would live in both repositories. The
dragon-egg in FSF gcc would be focused on using the stable llvm
and adapting to the FSF gcc trunk changes. The dragon-egg in llvm
would use the stable gcc release and be focused on adapting to llvm
trunk changes. The two could be re-merged on each llvm or gcc release.
My view anyway.
Jack
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Pinski
