Re: Defending GCC considered futile

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:50:06 -0500
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> 
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 18:54:37 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > > > 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?
> > > 
> > > I don't know, you tell me.
> > 
> > Btw, I don't really know what you mean by "front end" above, but if
> > you think the modularization of GCC means separating the back-end,
> > i.e. the part that is target-dependent, then that's not what how
> > it's done in this case.  There's more than one way to make a
> > compiler modular and easy to use by other programs.
> 
> I mostly just meant "getting API access to the part that parses things
> and generates an AST", nothing about GCC's architecture in
> particular was implied.

Then we shouldn't care if it's front end, back end, or "middle-end"
that provides that.