On 9 Nov 2011, at 12:56, David Chisnall wrote: > On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:32, Gregory Casamento wrote: > >> As I remember it, we agreed on GCC 4.0 and later. > > Yup, the rationale was that 2.9x -> 3.x was where most of the platforms were > dropped. Excluding 3.x gives us a more modern compiler with better language > support and doesn't lose us any platforms. Pretty much anything that might > reasonably be expected to run GNUstep that was supported by 3.x is also > supported by 4.x.
Yes, we chose 4.0 as the earliest compiler to support because it gave a good feature set to base future code on (and so we wouldn't want to change the version we depend on again for a while), while running on as many platforms as (by now probably rather more than) any version 3.x compiler. At least that was the theory for the choice, and nobody afaik has claimed/demonstrated anything wrong with it. Is there *any* platform where a 3.? compiler will run and a 4.? compiler won't? _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
