Re: Compiling GNUstep on darwin (again)

[Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf]

>The NeXT (Apple) runtime is written with asemmbly while GNU's is 
>written in pure C code (so it is more portable).

Are you really shure about this? A while ago I checked out Apple's objc4 
projekt from anoncvs.opensource.apple.com and build that. I don't remember any 
assembler files there (but I also 
didn't inspect every line of code). currently I can't check (since I am at 
work but I will as soon as I get home).

>
>Thanks,
>Andrew Pinski

greetings, Lars

>
>On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, at 03:49 , Markus Hitter wrote:
>
>> Am Dienstag den, 23. Juli 2002, um 20:38, schrieb Lars 
>> Sonchocky-Helldorf:
>>
>>> I ask my self if it is worth to keep the effort of porting 
>>> GNUstep to the NeXT runtime.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we'll never find advantages of NeXT runtime this 
>> way. It's said to work faster than GNU runtime - no sources to 
>> citate, however.
>>
>> For your convenience, I'm working on this topic from time to 
>> time, too. But sometimes I'm just out of ideas what might be 
>> wrong. These days it became obvious we should get rid of 
>> Apple's Foundation. I'll try that.
>>
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Markus
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
>> http://www.jump-ing.de/