[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arguments for Obj-C++ in GCC 4.0
From: |
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf |
Subject: |
Re: Arguments for Obj-C++ in GCC 4.0 |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:50:13 +0100 |
Am Montag, 24.01.05 um 20:00 Uhr schrieb Frederic Stark:
Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
and has been taken of the release milestone 4.0.0 by the release
manager of GCC (see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18408#c9, in order to get
the number of open bugs down and this way GCC ready for a release
Well, according to <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/criteria.html>,
Objective-C is /not/ part of the release criteria.
If I look at <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/criteria.html>, I find that
Objective-C was /not/ in the release criteria either, nor in 3.3 or >
3.1
(And it looks like java was in release criteria for 3.4, but got
dropped for 4.0. THAT would drive me crazy).
I don't want to start a flamewar or something, but the action of the
release manager seems correct to me.
OTOH, If I read the bug correctly, it seems that casting classes don't
work. If this is really the bug, then most Objective-C code out there
will not compile.
Now, if we could convince the steering commitee that releasing an
Objective-C compiler that don't work because nobody reviewed a 10 line
patch is somewhat ridiculous, we may get someone from the gcc team to
review the patch
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg00925.html>. And based
on previous releases, 4.0.1 will be 2 or 3 months later than 4.0.0...
In fact, the patch got reviewed and was rejected:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00889.html
i think, this decision remains to be discussed since:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01423.html :
"A rewrite of the type representation (to bring it closer in line with
C++/Java) is planned, but in the gcc-4.1 time frame at the earliest."
what would mean that for about one year (until 4.1 is out) GCC will
ship with a broken ObjC compiler. This is IMHO not acceptable for
GNUstep, given the fact that Zem thinks, there is currently no other
solution possible:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-01/msg01516.html
I will ping the reviewer to ask him if he couldn't approve the patch as
a timed solution, marked with a "FIXME" comment. See my next mail.
You can help this cause too if you express your opinion on that at
gcc@gcc.gnu.org . Discussing that subject here doesn't help the cause a
lot, really.
Cheers,
--fred
regards, Lars
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev