|| ||Joe Buck <Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.COM>|
|| ||Diego Novillo <dnovillo-AT-google.com>|
|| ||Re: Progress on GCC plugins ?|
|| ||Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:43:14 -0800|
|| ||Emmanuel Fleury <fleury-AT-labri.fr>, gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org|
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
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
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.
to post comments)