This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Archer project.
Re: Parser rewritting
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Chris Moller <cmoller at redhat dot com>, Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, Project Archer <archer at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 13:28:45 -0600
- Subject: Re: Parser rewritting
- References: <email@example.com><4BB24B69.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com><20100404084952.GK20524@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Dodji" == Dodji Seketeli <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Dodji> Would the copyright assignment requirements prevent us from trying to
Dodji> reuse, say, Clang? Maybe one could think about providing a C api on top
Dodji> of Clang and consider Clang as an external dependency?
This can be done, after all, we do it with Python :)
A new external dependency always causes trouble, though. Look through
the archives to see the discussions around expat, python, and libiconv.
A required external dependency will be trouble.
Anyway, I suspect the impedance mismatch problem holds equally for clang.
It is probably worth verifying that.
Dodji> I understand that this minimal parser is meant to stay simple, e.g. no
Dodji> preprocessing support, very minimal error reporting if any at all, no
Dodji> semantic analysis etc, but still, if we can't re-use Clang, then would
Dodji> it be possible to devise this new "minimal parser" as an independant,
Dodji> reusable library with its own dejagnu-free testsuite?
Dodji> Maybe other projects might be interested in using (and extending)
Dodji> something like that.
I'm not opposed to this but I don't want to slow down our progress to
make a library.