On Nov 24, 2007, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Nov 15, 2007, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> If/when your pass reaches certain maturity, you think it's ready for >>> production, and people think it's a good idea to have it in the >>> compiler, then you convert it into a static pass and you go through >>> the traditional bootstrap process. >> >>> That's the core idea with plug-ins, they allow more flexibility for >>> experimentation. They are not a means for implementing permanent >>> features in the compiler. >> >> I find the two paragraphs above contradictory. If they're not means >> for implementing permanent features, then converting a pass >> implemented as a plugin that's ready for production into a static pass >> is what?
> Converting a pass implemented as a plug-in into a static pass is the > way to add permanent feature in the compiler. In principle, I don't > think we'll want to implement permanent features as plug-ins. Agreed. >> It raises an issue of how important it is that this plugin >> architecture, if it is to exist, be similar to the internals of GCC, >> such that the conversion is as simple as possible. > There is no conversion. Then I guess I don't see any value whatsoever in this particular plugin architecture in overcoming the difficulties unexperienced GCC developers face :-( > Plug-in code uses the same internal code as statically linked > passes. Then they can be means for implementing permanent features in the compiler, after all. I guess we can agree on that ;-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org}
