[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Defending GCC considered futile
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Defending GCC considered futile |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:19:14 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
>> Modularizing GCC is not discouraged. It actually happens as we
>> speak, check out the latest developments in GCC 5 and GDB.
> 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?
AFAIK, there is no technical problem with it (even GCC's license allows
for it). The problem is with Richard refusal to develop&distribute such
a thing.
Stefan
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, (continued)
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, John Yates, 2015/02/10
- 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 <=
- Re: Defending GCC considered futile, Richard Stallman, 2015/02/11
- 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