On 3 Apr 2017, at 11:51, Ivan Vučica <i...@vucica.net> wrote: > > 5.4 is almost a year old, so maybe this was fixed. However, I'm not sure it > would be so bad to have a workaround for this compiler? > > There is already a warning that clang should be used (which I, of course, > switched to; I prefer it anyway). But having a workaround to make it work > with GCC, even in a basic, unsupported way, is probably still good?
As I said in the pull request, I’m hesitant to work around this for three reasons: - It’s a bug in GCC - The work-around code requires using macros and loses type safety - A runtime compiled with GCC lacks a number of important features I think simply removing support for building with GCC is probably a better idea. David _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
