Either way, there's a difference "effectively" deprecating something and giving explicit and timely warning about the fact that a certain environment will no longer be supported, is all I'm trying to say.
Cheers, Niels Von: thera...@sucs.org Gesendet: 3. April 2017 8:51 nachm. An: niels.gr...@halbordnung.de Cc: i...@vucica.net; gnustep-dev@gnu.org Betreff: Re: libobjc2 fails to build with gcc 5.4.0 On 3 Apr 2017, at 19:19, Niels Grewe <niels.gr...@halbordnung.de> wrote: > > As I said in the pull request, I don't have any interest in GCC as an > Objective-C compiler anymore (hell, I haven't compiled a single line of > Objective-C code using gcc this year…). But I think outright dropping GCC > support is a bit harsh. You'd be turning up the heat a lot on existing users > of libobjc2 in gcc-based environments [0]. It would also be a half-baked > measure without removal of the legacy runtime API (objc_msg_lookup() and > friends). My favoured approach would be deprecation of the old runtime API > (and GCC support) in the next release, and removal in the release after that. There’s big a difference between deprecating building the runtime with gcc and deprecating compiling other Objective-C code compiled with GCC and using the runtime. I’m in no hurry to do the latter, but the former is effectively done already as it implicitly disables or breaks a load of features. David
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
