[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GCC 3.4 / libobjc / mframe issues

From: David Ayers
Subject: Re: GCC 3.4 / libobjc / mframe issues
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:00:18 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707

Adam Fedor wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2004, at 3:18 PM, David Ayers wrote:
>>I've had several private conversations (esp. w. Richard) and the sum 
>>of it seems to be that we could:
>>-- remove sanity checks wrt the layout information in method signatures
>>-- deprecate --disable-do and require either ffi or ffcall
> --disable-do is only for apple-apple-apple anyway.

True, thanks.

>>-- deprecate some of the NSMethodSignature methods
>>   part of OpenStep:
>>   NSArgumentInfo
>>   -argumentInfoAtIndex: (not part of Cocoa)
>>   public GNUstep extensions:
>>   -methodInfo
>>I believe this to be an option only because these methods currently 
>>return unreliable information so I can't imagine anything actually 
>>relying on it.  But maybe it works on some platforms, so I would 
>>really appreciate some feedback if anyone is using this.
>>We would temporarily keep the mframe code so we can send the buggy 
>>layout information in signatures for DO so that older systems won't 
>>crash at the new layout of gcc.  We can stop sending that info later 
>>and have 2.1 work with 2.0 which doesn't have the sanity checks but it 
>>will not be able to talk to 1.9 which still has them.  At that point 
>>we can start looking at what we can kick out.
>>Adam, is this the only thing holding back the release or are you also 
>>waiting on the GNUstep.sh issue as it seems to be something worth 2.0 
> I was going to call it 1.10, but 2.0 is fine for me.

By all means, do call it 1.10!  I thought there was a discussion about
this and the consensus was 2.0 but I guess I was hallucinating.
Personally, I'd much prefer 1.10.

> I'm happy now that we have a plan for GNUstep.sh.  I'm not sure I want 
> to wait for a fix, unless we can find a temporary one, or fix what 
> appear to be simple bugs with gnustep-make not treating 
> GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT, etc correctly.  I'm going to try to make a list of 
> important bugs in the next few days and see if there is anything else I 
> really want fixed.


PS: Anyone, comments on deprecating those methods?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]