On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:34:38PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote: > Joe Buck wrote: > >On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote: > >>Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ? > > > >Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy > >to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC. > > I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is, and has > always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate into a > proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I know that does this.
I agree, but we still have the roadblock. Maybe we need a group of volunteers to meet with RMS in person and work on convincing him. E-mail seems way too inefficient and frustrating a mechanism. RMS regularly points to the examples of C++ and Objective-C as an argument for trying to force all extensions to be GPL (Mike Tiemann's employer tried to figure out a way of making g++ proprietary; NeXT tried a "user does the link" hack to get around the GPL for their original Objective-C compiler). Problem is, he hasn't really kept up; the problem with being as pure as he is is that you can become isolated from what's going on.
