Comments on: GCC Plugins http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96 Ian Lance Taylor Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:38:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: tromey http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-8333 tromey Thu, 20 Dec 2007 16:59:07 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-8333 It took a while but I finally figured out a reason to link with -rdynamic: backtraces. According to the libc manual this is needed to get function names from backtrace_symbols. Perhaps we could add backtrace support to the ICE code, and then require -rdynamic as well. This has the added benefit of actually being useful. It took a while but I finally figured out a reason to link with -rdynamic: backtraces.

According to the libc manual this is needed to get function names from backtrace_symbols. Perhaps we could add backtrace support to the ICE code, and then require -rdynamic as well. This has the added benefit of actually being useful.

]]> By: tromey http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-7032 tromey Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:48:28 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-7032 I don't know if -rdynamic would be accepted. I suppose we would have to have a reason for it other than "it enables plugins". I don't know of one though. The distros could do it, I suppose. Or you could change the default in the linker :-) Maybe someone will convince RMS. That is postponing the (in my view inevitable) showdown with him -- but postponing that isn't all bad. FWIW, I think the SC isn't really a problem. If we had elections I would probably vote for the current slate, or at least the visibly active members of it. I liked what I heard from them at the Summit, for instance. However, I'm in principle opposed to completely closed decision-making bodies like this one. I think it is bad to have no recourse and no turnover, even if they are doing a good job. I do think the SC does too much in private. Perhaps voting or turnover would change that culture a bit. But, there are probably other ways to address it as well. I don’t know if -rdynamic would be accepted. I suppose we would have to have a reason for it other than “it enables plugins”. I don’t know of one though.

The distros could do it, I suppose.

Or you could change the default in the linker :-)

Maybe someone will convince RMS. That is postponing the (in my view inevitable) showdown with him — but postponing that isn’t all bad.

FWIW, I think the SC isn’t really a problem. If we had elections I would probably vote for the current slate, or at least the visibly active members of it. I liked what I heard from them at the Summit, for instance.

However, I’m in principle opposed to completely closed decision-making bodies like this one. I think it is bad to have no recourse and no turnover, even if they are doing a good job.

I do think the SC does too much in private. Perhaps voting or turnover would change that culture a bit. But, there are probably other ways to address it as well.

]]> By: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-7026 Ian Lance Taylor Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:22:57 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-7026 Certainly people opposed to plugins see no gain from them. But many changes see no gain. What we have to overcome is that they see a harm. Certainly people opposed to plugins see no gain from them. But many changes see no gain. What we have to overcome is that they see a harm.

]]> By: Ian Lance Taylor http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-7025 Ian Lance Taylor Wed, 21 Nov 2007 05:21:21 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-7025 I like the LD_PRELOAD idea. Do you think it would fly? I think that to the extent to which the SC is a problem, it is fixable. RMS is more of a problem. I like the LD_PRELOAD idea. Do you think it would fly?

I think that to the extent to which the SC is a problem, it is fixable. RMS is more of a problem.

]]> By: tromey http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-7009 tromey Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:01:50 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-7009 It occured to me that if we linked gcc with -rdynamic, we could implement plugins using LD_PRELOAD and some glue to insert new passes into the global pass tables. It occured to me that if we linked gcc with -rdynamic, we could implement plugins using LD_PRELOAD and some glue to insert new passes into the global pass tables.

]]> By: echristo http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-7008 echristo Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:27:20 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-7008 Most of the opposition to gcc plugins are from people who either a) don't have anything to gain from them, or b) an easier to work on gcc could affect their pocketbook. The ada people are particularly bad here as it is both a and b. Getting frustrated for sure. Most of the opposition to gcc plugins are from people who either a) don’t have anything to gain from them, or b) an easier to work on gcc could affect their pocketbook. The ada people are particularly bad here as it is both a and b.

Getting frustrated for sure.

]]> By: tromey http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96/comment-page-1#comment-7003 tromey Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:37:59 +0000 http://www.airs.com/blog/archives/96#comment-7003 I wish I was surprised by the opposition. What benefit does GCC derive from letting RMS have a veto over issues like this? In the current setup, without his assent, there will be no forward motion. Instead we'll simply discuss the topic every six months, without actually changing anything. Today I'm feeling radical and I think that this, plus general SC opacity, means we should fork. I wish I was surprised by the opposition.

What benefit does GCC derive from letting RMS have a veto over issues like this? In the current setup, without his assent, there will be no forward motion. Instead we’ll simply discuss the topic every six months, without actually changing anything.

Today I’m feeling radical and I think that this, plus general SC opacity, means we should fork.

]]>