On 10 September 2010 15:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez <lopeziba...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner >> <ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >>>> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make >>>> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC! >>>> >>>> Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc? >>> >>> It's the question of what one means by "plug-in interface". If you >>> view it as no different from the existing llvm-gcc, then you're >>> basically saying we already HAVE a plug-in interface. So then what are >>> we talking about? >> >> Obviously not about the same thing. >> >> llvm-gcc is GCC front ends with LLVM as a back end. >> >> The idea here is clang with GCC as a back end. > > They are equivalent in the sense that I would understand why GCC would > allow the former but it would fight against the latter.
s/would/wouldn't/ Cheers, Manuel.
