Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results

[Gregory John Casamento]

Allow me to clarify, before anyone asks, we should only support gcc 3.0 and greater.

 

--
Gregory John Casamento

----- Original Message ----
From: Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden>
To: Andrew Ruder <address@hidden>; Developer GNUstep <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:14:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results

Adam/Andy,

Just to add my $0.02...

The gcc-2.95 compiler is quite old, we should consider problems that arise because of issues relating to gcc 2.95 to be non-release critical for GNUstep. 

We shouldn't go out of our way to break GNUstep for gcc 2.95, but we should not bend over backwards to fix issues related to it either.

Later, GJC
--
Gregory John Casamento

----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Ruder <address@hidden>
To: Developer GNUstep <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:41:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results

On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:02:01PM -0600, Adam Fedor wrote:
> I narrowed it down to one method, but that doesn't really help much.
> On the solaris, I'm still using the 2.95 compiler, mostly to check for
> backward compatibility. Perhaps I should just upgrade and start
> deprecating support for gcc 2.95?

The way I see it, gcc 3.0 was released on June 18, 2001.  This is more
than 5 years ago.  In the technology world, that is a very long, long
time.  If there's really platforms that don't have gcc 3 or higher,
maybe it is just time for those platforms to be depracated (or they can
use an older version of gnustep).

Just my two cents,
Andy
--
Andrew Ruder <address@hidden>
http://www.aeruder.net


_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev

_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev