Naive question: What’s the problem #ifdefing out the code that depends on blocks when building on gcc?
On Tue 29 Oct 2019 at 12:51, David Chisnall <gnus...@theravensnest.org> wrote: > On 27/10/2019 16:05, Gregory Casamento wrote: > > We are a GNU / FSF project. Dropping support for GCC would be bad > > political mojo. There is little we can do to bridge the gap other than > > doing these macros. > > I don't really understand how this works. GCC does not support a > post-2005 dialect of Objective-C. GNUstep is a framework that aims to > provide an implementation of the 2019 Objective-C standard library. Why > is it politically problematic for GNUstep to drop support for GCC, but > not problematic for GCC to drop support for GNUstep? > > For what it's worth, I've spoken to a couple of GCC devs over the last > few years about supporting modern Objective-C (because I would like us > to have a choice of compilers), but the effort involved for them is huge > (even a naive ARC implementation is a big piece of effort) and the > return is small (why would anyone use it? Basically, the only target > market is GNUstep developers on platforms that Clang doesn't support, > which I think is a set containing only Riccardo). There is some > interest in supporting blocks, because Apple's libc headers no longer > support compilers that don't support blocks, but even then I haven't > seen much progress from GCC. > > David > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
