In general I think spinning off modules/passes that are not used very
frequently (e.g. the tree browser) is a good idea since it reduces the
size of our code base.
I would go a bit further.
One nice properties of plugins is that they have a more restrictive
API. That should help us to get
[ Moved to gcc@ ]
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 14:30, Olatunji Ruwasetjruw...@google.com wrote:
Has any decision being made on how plugins will be distributed with
future releases. Is there going to be a plugins directory ?.
Thanks
We may want to produce some plugins that are useful for GCC
Sorry that I wasn't very specific with my question. I m currently
wrapping up the conversion of
mudflap into a plugin. Most of the required patches have being
approved and committed, so I was
thinking ahead as to where the the plugin code will reside.
Thanks for the information and the link
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 14:50, Olatunji Ruwasetjruw...@google.com wrote:
Sorry that I wasn't very specific with my question. I m currently
wrapping up the conversion of
mudflap into a plugin. Most of the required patches have being
approved and committed, so I was
thinking ahead as to
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
In general I think spinning off modules/passes that are not used very
frequently (e.g. the tree browser) is a good idea since it reduces the
size of our code base.
Before moving something out to a plugin (if we think that is technically
appropriate
On 07/15/2009 09:36 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Before moving something out to a plugin (if we think that is technically
appropriate for the particular code in question) we should have a way to
build code, set up to be built as a plugin, into the compiler so that the
-fplugin options find the
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/15/2009 09:36 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Before moving something out to a plugin (if we think that is technically
appropriate for the particular code in question) we should have a way to
build code, set up to be built as a plugin, into the
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/15/2009 09:36 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Before moving something out to a plugin (if we think that is technically
appropriate for the particular code in question) we should have a way to
build code, set up to be
On 07/15/2009 10:47 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Unless libltdl can be statically linked in, using it is a bad idea for
other reasons as previously discussed at length.
I know of no program that dynamically links to libltdl, actually.
Paolo
