[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:18:45 +0200

> From: David Engster <address@hidden>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  
> address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:03:27 +0100
> >I faced a similar disheartening intention (for quite different, but
> >still political) reasons when I worked on bidi support.  I decided to
> >disregard and proceed, and the result is before your eyes.
> The crucial difference is that I could not have done this on my own, but
> that I would have needed lots of help from the GCC project, most
> importantly the willingness to actively support tooling based on GCC,
> which in the end means opening up the compiler further.

I think you greatly exaggerate your need for outside help and/or the
obstacles you'd need to face when you would have asked for such help.
Quite a few of GCC developers use Emacs, so finding individuals
motivated to help with this project should not be too hard.

> I'm pretty sure that eventually I would have needed changes
> upstream, either to make my life easier, or to retrieve information
> that isn't available in the AST. Even if RMS finally decides to
> tolerate an AST export, it is clear that he won't approve of the
> general direction that is needed to make GCC a contender in the
> tooling area.

I suggest that you take a look at libcc1.so in GCC 5 and its use by
GDB for injecting code into the debuggee.  It might change your
perspective and your evaluation of the state of affairs, now and in
the future.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]