Riccardo,
I'm not sure if I got that email, what "core" stuff are you referring to? Please send it to the list again.
In the meantime, allow me to be clear on this: GCC 2.95.x is an ancient version of the compiler which doesn't support modern conventions in C99 as well such things as namespaces, certain types of foward declarations, -fconstant-string, and it also has problems with spin-lock (mutex locking) and etc. It's silly for us to officially support it anywhere.
Also, any architecture which doesn't have GCC 3 support can and probably should be dropped as well.
The non-release critical policy, in this case, needs to cover all of GNUstep, not just "core pieces".
Later, GJC
--
Gregory John Casamento
I'm not sure if I got that email, what "core" stuff are you referring to? Please send it to the list again.
In the meantime, allow me to be clear on this: GCC 2.95.x is an ancient version of the compiler which doesn't support modern conventions in C99 as well such things as namespaces, certain types of foward declarations, -fconstant-string, and it also has problems with spin-lock (mutex locking) and etc. It's silly for us to officially support it anywhere.
Also, any architecture which doesn't have GCC 3 support can and probably should be dropped as well.
The non-release critical policy, in this case, needs to cover all of GNUstep, not just "core pieces".
Later, GJC
--
Gregory John Casamento
----- Original Message ----
From: Riccardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Fred Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Developer GNUstep <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:29:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results
From: Riccardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Fred Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Developer GNUstep <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:29:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results
Hello,
On Friday, August 11, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
> I am not that sure about this. gcc 2.95 is a very old version, but it
> still has its own merits. It was the most popular release before the
> re-architecture and in many cases it is still faster than the later gcc
> releases. It also is in some cases the only version of gcc at hand. (I
> had to learn this when trying to do cross compilation of GNUstep)
I agree here. Sensing the hint of Gregory I would go as far as
considering 2.95 bugs non-critical, but trying not to actively break
2.95 and officially supporting it in the core stuff I mentioned in the
previous email.
Cheers,
R
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
On Friday, August 11, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
> I am not that sure about this. gcc 2.95 is a very old version, but it
> still has its own merits. It was the most popular release before the
> re-architecture and in many cases it is still faster than the later gcc
> releases. It also is in some cases the only version of gcc at hand. (I
> had to learn this when trying to do cross compilation of GNUstep)
I agree here. Sensing the hint of Gregory I would go as far as
considering 2.95 bugs non-critical, but trying not to actively break
2.95 and officially supporting it in the core stuff I mentioned in the
previous email.
Cheers,
R
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
