> - I do not quite understand what Jan means. I do think that rethinking and documenting some parts of the design would be nice though.
I believe Jan is a more in depth design question that exceeds the basic managed model design. I will reply to his email separately soon.
> - I do not think that *removing* a separate Clang (LLVM???) plug-in is the way to go. [...]
I agree. We should have separate Clang plug-in with its own wizard entries and settings pages.
As a clang/llvm user, can we call it the clang (what case) plug-in. The existing GCC feature is called "C/C++ GNU Toolchain Build Support" with the wizard/template entries being variants of Linux GCC, Cygwin GCC. etc. Would "C/C++ clang Toolchain Build Support" with the wizard/template entries being variants of Linux clang, Cygwin clang. etc. be a correct mapping?
> - I prefer to leave out the non-Clang(++) stuff
Are you recommending having no LLVM stuff other than clang support in CDT? If so, I agree.
> FWIW: I really *hate* and don't (maybe want to) understand all the [...]
Fair enough - the plugin.xml for extension points in general is a very good system. The toolchain definitions with their options, while powerful, is verbose and fiddly.
> [...] readable tutorial for creating Eclipse plug-ins that explains the whole extension point stuff?
Thanks,
Jonah