On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:35, Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net> wrote:
> I agree, but a plugin could also do likewise, e.g. write memory contents > in some kind of persistent storage. Why don't we cross that bridge when we get to it? It seems odd to me that a plugin would want to wind itself very tightly around a specific lto1 binary. I am not seeing an advantage to that kind of requirement. In fact, I'd love to have a PCH implementation that does not need to tie itself to a specific binary. Diego.
