Hi Greg, I would prefer to turn the tone a bit down again. What you wrote may be regarded as very negative by some.
I don't know about any specific GNUstep feature, we did not implement in the last year because we actively decided that support for gcc 2.95 was more important. Until such a case turns up, why not go along with what Adam and Riccardo suggested: We don't offically support gcc 2.95, but we try to keep things running in that environment. If we know about issues and know how to fix them we should do so. I remember that from time to time we break compilation for older compilers by declaring new variable in the middle of the code. Now I don't see any problem in only declaring variables at the beginning of a block. Actually we all try to do this, although it old fashioned by now. Talking about ancient architecture. Isn't GNustep all about that? We started off as a step in replacement for NextStep, we just should not talk too negative about old things :-) Cheers Fred Gregory John Casamento schrieb: > Riccardo, > >> In any case, and I know I think differently than several people here, I >> would prefer to retain gcc 2.95 compatibility at least for the core >> libraries and, if possible, for all "GNUstep supplied" applications. Or, >> at least, the fundamental ones: gorm, project center, system preferences >> and if possible gworkspace. > > So basically all of GNUstep, is what you're saying. This seems to run > counter to what we're discussing. The problem is that there are too > many limitations we must impose on the code in order to maintain that > compatibility, as I described in my previous posting. > >> Of course this does not apply top linux/x86 which almost everyone uses. >> It is just for the 1% of the remaining 1%. But it is one of the reasons >> why I always liked gnustep. > > GNUstep needs to move forward, we can't be held back by the 0.01% of people > who might be using it on an ancient architecture. > > While we should strive to have a wide variety of machines, we shouldn't > go out of our way to make it work on machines which are no longer in common > use. > > -- > Gregory John Casamento > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Fred Kiefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Developer GNUstep <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:26:26 AM > Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results > > Hello, > > On Friday, August 11, 2006, at 12:02 AM, 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? > > I used to regularly test on gcc 2.95 the core libraries on various > platforms. It is just that lately I was too busy with other important > life tasks. > > In any case, and I know I think differently than several people here, I > would prefer to retain gcc 2.95 compatibility at least for the core > libraries and, if possible, for all "GNUstep supplied" applications. Or, > at least, the fundamental ones: gorm, project center, system preferences > and if possible gworkspace. > > I do not want to enter the eternal gcc 2.9 versus gcc3.x or gcc 4.x > discussion. Mountains of ascii bytes have been spilled about that. I > know 2.95 has many problems. Even Linus Torvalds spoke about the issue. > I just want to remember that newer gcc's are not a good option on more > than one platform (mostly because of C++, not because of obj-c or C > itself) and that gcc guys aren't that happy anymore to fix problems on > arcane platforms as they did on 2.9 series. Furthermore not everybody > may want to upgrade gcc (possibly because the box is managed by others > and 2.95 is the easiest choice) and having more than one compiler > installed (of which some are incomplete, like lacking C++ or in any case > have big api differences like 2.95 and 3.x have) is cumbersome. > > Of course this does not apply top linux/x86 which almost everyone uses. > It is just for the 1% of the remaining 1%. But it is one of the reasons > why I always liked gnustep. > > Regarding solaris and the bug in discussion, I have gcc 3.x installed so > we can check this out too. On Sparc but OpenBSD I have 2.95. > > I will resume testing on more arcane platforms ASAP. > > Have fun, > Riccardo > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
