[LLVMdev] dragonegg FSF gcc merge?
baldrick at free.fr
Fri Apr 9 08:22:17 PDT 2010
>>> Is there a timeline for when dragonegg might be
>>> merged into gcc (4.6 perhaps)? I ask because FSF gcc
>>> has allowed code in as technology previews before.
>>> For instance, graphite really wasn't that usable in
>>> gcc 4.4 and produced wrong code in the Polyhedron
>>> 2005 benchmarks until gcc 4.5. So as long as it can bootstrap
>>> gcc 4.6 and works in general, dragonegg should qualify
>>> for inclusion as an experimental plugin.
>> I hadn't really thought about adding dragonegg to the gcc codebase.
>> What do you see as the advantages of doing so?
> I thought that gcc plug-ins were meant to become part of
> the FSF gcc source code, no? In any case, if dragonegg were
> in the FSF gcc source code, it would have much higher
> visibility and a better chance that some of the existing
> FSF gcc developers would tinker with it on the side.
another advantage of having plugins in the gcc repository is that when a gcc
developer makes an API change they will (hopefully) fix the plugin as well as
the rest of the code. On the other hand, there's the same advantage to being
in the LLVM repository: LLVM developers will (hopefully) fix dragonegg when
they make an API change, though it has to be said that Chris broke dragonegg
several times recently but didn't notice :) LLVM is changing far more than
gcc as far as dragonegg is concerned, suggesting that the LLVM repository is
a better place to live.
As for visibility, you are probably right that many more people would become
aware of dragonegg if it was part of gcc. I'm not sure that that's a real
argument though, because a good "advertising campaign" would probably be much
more effective as far as visibility is concerned than including dragonegg in
the gcc repository. As for gcc developers tinkering with it - well, indeed
they might, who can say? Dragonegg does already get a small amount of gcc
visibility already, since I submit gcc patches for dragonegg issues from time
to time, but as far as I know no gcc developers ever tried it.
More information about the llvm-dev