[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?
Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?
Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:19:48 +0000
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
On 18/11/2019 11:31, Gregory Casamento wrote:
Currently I know about the following missing functionality:
These three letters hide a huge amount. It isn't just inserting
-retain/-release calls, the requirements for ARC are:
- Add the concept of method families for controlling ownership.
- Add syntax for the qualifiers and attributes for overriding
autodetected method families.
- Add a set of lifetime analyses in the front end to detect where to
insert the ARC calls. There are around 20 different calls inserted here
depending on the analyses.
- Add some non-trivial optimisations to elide most of the refcount
manipulations (without these, ARC code has a lot of redundant refcount
- Support ownership metadata in the ivar reflection info so that the
runtime can properly implement object_setIVar().
In Clang, this is about as much code (scattered throughout the codebase,
interacting with other aspects of C and C++ language semantics in
non-trivial ways, with a high testing overhead) as the entire
Objective-C implementation in GCC. The complexity of adding this to GCC
is greater the complexity of adding Objective-C support to GCC from
* block support
The Apple fork did have blocks support, but it was the old ABI and broke
in exciting ways. Blocks in modern Objective-C have some non-trivial
interactions with ARC.
* template support (for collection objects like NSArray<NSString *>)
Note that these are not templates, they are type-erasing generics. I
believe GCC's Objective-C++ support is sufficient that you can use
Objective-C classes as template parameters (which means you can
implement smart pointers that wrap Objective-C objects, which gets you
about half way to ARC in terms of usability).
Generics would probably be relatively easy to add, because they're just
semantic analysis: they're gone by the time code generation occurs.
What else is currently missing?
Apple stopped using Objective-C 2.0 over 10 years ago, so it's probably
time that we stopped doing so as well. There are a bunch of features
that are a mix of language and runtime things and sometimes difficult to
deconflate. Here's a rough list of things that I know are missing on
the language side:
- GCC supports declared properties, but none of the newer modes (e.g.
- GCC does not support property introspection metadata.
- GCC does not support class properties (I'm fairly convinced that
these are a bad idea, so that's not a huge point against it).
- GCC does not support the non-fragile ABI and so can't support ivars
declared in an @implementation context or a class extension.
- Objective-C literals. Clang supports number, array, and dictionary
literals. I am in two minds about whether this is a good idea. I don't
like the clutter in the language, but I do find that they are very
useful in practice.
- Subscripting for collection classes.
GCC has, I believe, recently gained support for instancetype. I think
it also supports fast enumeration, but I'm not 100% sure (in
Objective-C++, you can quite easily wrap NSFastEnumeration in a C++
iterator, so you can work around this and GNUstep has macros for using it).
There's also the new ABI, which provides a bunch of things that are not
directly surfaced in the language, but which depend on compiler support,
- Using objc_msgSend on platforms where the runtime supports it (this
has knock-on effects on some of the forwarding).
- Selectors are deduplicated by the linker.
- Protocols are deduplicated by the linker.
- Constant strings contain a hash.
- GSTinyString for 8-character ASCII strings on 64-bit platforms.
- Richer ivar metadata (size, alignment, ARC ownership).
- SEH-compatible exceptions on Windows.
These changes don't require modifying any of GCC other than the codegen
Is anyone interested in helping to implement these features in gcc?
Iain Sandoe was interested in getting GCC to feature parity, but I don't
think he's made much progress and I don't really see the value in
sinking 2-3 developer years of work into a project to get GCC to support
a language that the GCC developers don't care about and where the demand
among users for a GCC implementation is negligible.
If someone has budget to employ a developer for 2-3 years to work on
something to improve GNUstep, I can think of a few hundred things that
would have a higher impact than adding modern Objective-C support to GCC.
- Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Gregory Casamento, 2019/11/18
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Bertrand Dekoninck, 2019/11/19
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?,
David Chisnall <=
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Jordan Schidlowsky, 2019/11/19
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Ivan Vučica, 2019/11/19
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, David Chisnall, 2019/11/20
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Derek Fawcus, 2019/11/20
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Gregory Casamento, 2019/11/20
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, David Chisnall, 2019/11/21
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2019/11/21
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Riccardo Mottola, 2019/11/29
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, H. Nikolaus Schaller, 2019/11/29
- Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?, Gregory Casamento, 2019/11/21