Makes sense. Although, it seems odd to me to explicitly try to design a piece of open source software to enforce a particular license via internal design decisions. Seems time would be better spent just making good design decisions to make a great product. It's always easy to violate the GPL... No matter. I'm not trying to start a discussion on the topic. Just wondered what you meant. Thanks, Lyle -----Original Message----- From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 12:33 PM To: lrtaylor Cc: rgulati@xxxxxxxxxxx; gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Using the GCC IR lrtaylor@xxxxxxxxxx writes: > "GPL side-stepping"? What do you mean? If it were easy to have gcc write out and read in the internal representation, either trees or RTL, then it would be easy for somebody to write proprietary code which did new compiler optimizations. They would modify gcc to write out the RTL, they would process the RTL in some proprietary manner, and then they would tell gcc to read in the RTL and finish the processing. The result would essentially be an enhanced gcc some of which was proprietary, which is exactly what the GPL is supposed to prevent. Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gcc-help-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Ian Lance Taylor > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 10:19 PM > To: Rohit Gulati > Cc: gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Using the GCC IR > > "Rohit Gulati" <rgulati@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Can I get access to the IR generated by GCC. I know how to dump the > > IR to file. Is there a way to access the IR in memory (walk the IR). > > Well, sure. gcc code does it all the time. Look at the source, and > read the internals manual. > > There is no way to have gcc write out the internal representation, > modify it yourself, and then invoke the backend on the result. gcc > does not read in the internal representation. This is intentional, > due to concerns about GPL side-stepping.
