Hi,
I don't remember about this and agreeing on that. We spoke about 2.95
because it had serious limitations and limited c99 compatibility which
was fine to drop and I agreed on that because the inconvenience of
maintaining it outweighed the benefits eventually.
I'd be against dropping 3.x support. What's the problem with 3.x vs.
4.x? 3.2 especially was essentially the "second best" portable option
after 2.95. Portability of gcc got quite worse after 3.4.
Given the past code in gnustep, I never had any problems with gcc3, the
only problems where with 2.95.
Riccardo
PS: additionally I think that the current gui and back release should
still be 2.95 compatible, they are the natural match for the past base
release. Especially since the past releases of gui and back are unusable
with current base. So a coehrent "core" should be released.
On 11/09/11 13:56, David Chisnall wrote:
On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:32, Gregory Casamento wrote:
As I remember it, we agreed on GCC 4.0 and later.
Yup, the rationale was that 2.9x -> 3.x was where most of the
platforms were dropped. Excluding 3.x gives us a more modern compiler
with better language support and doesn't lose us any platforms. Pretty
much anything that might reasonably be expected to run GNUstep that
was supported by 3.x is also supported by 4.x.
David
-- Sent from my Apple II