On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Basile,
>> I tend to be quite happy with the idea of dragonegg being a good GCC
>> plugin, since it is a good illustration of the plugin feature.
> I think Jack wasn't suggesting that dragonegg should be changed to not be
> a plugin any more. I think he was suggesting that it should live in the
> repository rather than the LLVM repository.
So, no offense, but the suggestion here is to make this subversive
(for FSF GCC) plugin part of FSF GCC? What is the benefit of this for
GCC? I don't see any. I just see a plugin trying to piggy-back on the
hard work of GCC front-end developers and negating the efforts of
those working on the middle ends and back ends.