Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
With a plugin, the developer can simply point the user at the place where
he can download the plugin for his current version, and we can get quick
feedback on the usefulness of the new optimization.
Except that, based on what Richard and Basile discussed, you may need
a different (binary) plugin for different minor versions of GCC (and,
possibly, different vendor versions of GCC).
All of which terribly reminds me of the painful (for end users, ISVs,
IHVs, OSVs,...) situation we have with the Linux kernel and out-of-tree
modules.
I do agree with the similarity. But is that situation [of today's linux kernel
modules?] really so painful??
One the other hand, as an end-user, I tend to believe that the current kernel with many naughty modules is easier for
users (than the situation in 1995, at the time of linux 1.2, when you didn't have modules: to profit from a new hardware
that you just bought, at that time you *had to* configure & build your own kernel). Of course, I would believe it is a
pain to linux distribution makers, etc. But I tend to believe that for Joe Random user, current kernel modules are more
a blessing than a mess. At the time of linux 1.2 you needed to understand how to compile a kernel (& various other
software) when adding new hardware; this is really not the case today. When you plug in some new hardware on a new
Ubuntu or Debian distribution, is may happens to work without any kernel recompilation. This was not true in 1995, so
from the user's point of view, I see some progress.
So perhaps GCC plugins are better than no plugins at all. Only time can tell.
Or perhaps I am entirely wrong, and plugins won't be used at all, and we are all losing our time. Nobody knows for sure
(at least not me). It is only intuitive guesses! I still strongly believe today that plugins are a good thing, but I
agree it is a bet on the future, and I may be entirely wrong!
And if plugins are not that important, adding more hooks (so perhaps removing some of them later) is not really
important neither (so I am even more confused that we are debating a few new hooks so much, and putting more energy in
discussions than in patches). If plugins are not a success, we could eventually remove entirely the plugin support in
GCC 5.0 (or even 4.6). [I have no idea of who will decide that, and I have no idea of who decided that GCC can have
plugins. Perhaps the Steering Commitee, or RMS himself??? Certainly not me Basile... :-) :-) and probably this decision
has not been taken on the gcc@ mailing list.] Of course, discussion of plugin extensions or removal is a possibility of
flameful heated exchanges for 2011.
Maybe a more realistic bet is that the gcc@ mailing list will have even more heated messages in end of 2011 than in end
of 2009. :-) :-)
Are there any objective measures of the temperature of a mailing list :-) :-) ?
? ?
A couple of hours ago I was almost angry when reading & writing on this mailing list. Now my mood is that is is quite
funny to discuss all that. I am enjoying it. :-) :-)
Cheers.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
