Re: Opcodes and bfd & plugins.

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

Second reply--the first one was only to the sender.

"nshmyrev" <nshmyrev@yandex.ru> writes:

> >A plugable interface is inevitably slightly slower, so most people
> >would not want to use it.  There are very few people who would benefit
> >from a plugable interface--basically just people in your position.
> 
> I don't think that dissasembler should take much time to load shared library.

I also don't think anybody much cares how fast the disassembler is.
But people care a lot about how fast the assembler and linker are, and
even the time it takes to load a shared library matter.

> But, plugins will solve another development problem -- one can concentrate in
> developing library, instead of removing obsolete configuration. Look at this mailing list,
> obsolete wars are main discussion subject. With plugins there will be no problem with 
> new architecture or obsolete -- one can just keep code of plugin or write a new plugin for new architecture. if you afraid, that there will be no free plugins, I am sure they will be available.

I don't understand this.  The issue of obsolete targets is the same
with plugins--after all, the binutils maintainers still have to
maintain the targets, since people who download the binutils expect to
get working code.  It's already possible for people to maintain their
own private targets.  I don't see that plugins don't change the issue
of maintenance significantly.

Also, obsolete targets are hardly a main discussion issue of the
mailing list--it's just been discussed over the last few days.

Ian