On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:41:09 -0400 > Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > >> On 3/31/12 1:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> >> > If we want to aim towards a more modular GCC made of several shared >> > libraries, it seems >> > that we are requiring the host system to have dynamic libraries (which is >> > not a big deal >> > today; all the major OSes running on developers desktop or laptop have >> > them). >> >> I don't follow. Modularity does not require shared libraries. > > > Indeed, but when GCC is made of several shared libraries, it would be > modular, since each > such shared library would be defined by a module.
I feel that you are moving the goal post, and you are either confusing the notion of modularity with something else you have not been asking until now. I find that a bit worrisome. As pointed out by Diego, modularity and shared libraries are orthogonal notions. Modularity does not require shared libraries, not does it provide them. A long time ago, GCC was designed on purpose in a way that entangled all levels of abstractions for fear that making it modular would encourage proprietary work based on GCC without the benefits of contribution back. Eventually the argument was won that we can make GCC follow less contrived software engineering practices without giving away the treasure. You appear to be moving in directions that may give pause to those who championed better separation of concerns in GCC. -- Gaby
