Re: Fwd: Arguments for Obj-C++ in GCC 4.0

[Gregory John Casamento]

--- Frederic Stark <gsfred@almonde.com> wrote:

> 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

Objective-C SHOULD be part of the release criteria since GNUstep is a GNU
project (as opposed to non-gnu).   I suggest the GCC team reevaluate it's
position on this.

> (And it looks like java was in release criteria for 3.4, but got dropped 
> for 4.0. THAT would drive me crazy).

So the absence of a working ObjC doesn't bother you, but the absence of a
working Java does?

> I don't want to start a flamewar or something, but the action of the 
> release manager seems correct to me.

Correct, per the rules, yes.    Insensitive to the needs of the GNUstep
community, however.

> 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...

Indeed.  But I dislike relying on the charity of the gcc team.

> Cheers,
> 
> --fred


=====
Gregory John Casamento 
-- CEO/President Open Logic Corp. (A Maryland Corporation)
#### Maintainer of Gorm for GNUstep.