Why not get the AST from LLVM ?

Posted Jan 22, 2015 10:07 UTC (Thu) by moltonel (guest, #45207)
Parent article: Extracting the abstract syntax tree from GCC

If there's such a political barrier about gcc ast, why doesn't the author of the emacs completion work switch to using llvm, and get on with life ?

I can understand the desire to remain "GNU-pure" by using gcc with emacs, but at some point a pragmatism check is needed. Switching backend sounds like a much less dramatic outcome than abandoning the project.

But maybe the contributor has been burned once too many, and doesn't have the energy to refactor and/or justify himself again. Such a waste :(

Why not get the AST from LLVM ?

Posted Jan 22, 2015 20:58 UTC (Thu) by rodgerd (guest, #58896) [Link]

If I've understood the saga correctly, she was going to use LLVM until Stallman persuaded her to use the full GNU toolchain, and *then* he sat on his hands before coming out against the idea. I think that's what rankles so much for people - he's wasted a lot of this developer's time.