[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: Defending GCC considered futile |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:13:26 -0500 |
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> If this is the case, what is the problem with Emacs directly linking
> against the GCC front end to get access to the C and C++ AST?
I have nothing against that.
On the other hand, it might be easier to run GCC in a child process,
have it keep the AST inside it, and ask it questions about completion
at any given point.
--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, (continued)
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Florian Weimer, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Stefan Monnier, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, raman, 2015/02/11
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/11
Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Helmut Eller, 2015/02/09
Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Florian Weimer, 2015/02/09
Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Perry E. Metzger, 2015/02/09