Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[Eli Zaretskii]

> 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.