Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

If we have Swift interworking we can also do the inverse: support Apple’s Swift compiler with our own C and Objective-C based libobjc2, CoreFoundation and Foundation packages. This way instead of throwing out chunks of the code we have to extend and adapt them to fit the Swift compiler. This wil

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Yavor, On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:01 PM Yavor Doganov wrote: > [ Posting this via NNTP, hope it works. ] > > Ivan Vučica wrote: > > Distro packagers should also voice their opinion on whether they can > > switch to Clang (and, hopefully, libobjc2), which I'd invite them to > > do no matter what

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

I forgot... "What's to gain" should also contain: * Simplification of the code. We will not have to use any #define macros in order to bridge the gap between what are, essentially, two different languages. * C++, while this is not exclusive to clang, gcc doesn't support the latest version of C++

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 10:37 schrieb Gregory Casamento : > > I forgot... > > "What's to gain" should also contain: > > * Simplification of the code. We will not have to use any #define macros in > order to bridge the gap between what are, essentially, two different > languages. I think this is

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an elevated point of view... > Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento : > * Compatibility, much of the API is moving towards using blocks. Blocks *ARE > NOT SUPPORTED* on GCC and aren't likely to be anytime in the

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 11:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an > elevated point of view... > >> Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento : >> * Compatibility, much of the API is moving towards using blocks. Block

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:21 schrieb Andreas Fink : > > >> On 25 Nov 2019, at 11:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >> I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an >> elevated point of view... >> >>> Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento : >>> * Compati

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Where should we put the creativity to though? I would argue that some better places for our creativity to go towards would be things like our own updating Base, CoreBase and GUI to cover all modern Cocoa API, Swift standard library, GNUstep Back compatible CocoaTouch and SwiftUI implementation,

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Nikolaus, With respect... On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:18 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from > an elevated point of view... > Elevated? > > Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento < > greg.casame...@gmail.com>: > >

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:41 schrieb Maxthon Chan : > > Where should we put the creativity to though? The highest level of creativity is to do both > I would argue that some better places for our creativity to go towards would > be things like our own updating Base, CoreBase and GUI to cover all m

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On 25 Nov 2019, at 09:37, Gregory Casamento wrote: > > * C++, while this is not exclusive to clang, gcc doesn't support the latest > version of C++. Clang is extraordinarily good at optimization. I don’t think this is true. We have a C++17 project that we test in CI with GCC. The only times

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> On Nov 25, 2019, at 6:51 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > >> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:41 schrieb Maxthon Chan > >: >> >> Where should we put the creativity to though? > > The highest level of creativity is to do both We only have a limited amount of manpower, so we ha

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Nikolaus, On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:51 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > Am 25.11.2019 um 11:41 schrieb Maxthon Chan : > > Where should we put the creativity to though? > > > The highest level of creativity is to do both > This is entirely subjective. Why shouldn't we focus? GC -- Gregory

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Ah, okay. So I guess we can take that off of the list of advantages. I believe, however, that clang is better at optimization. I could be wrong on that point. On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:53 AM David Chisnall wrote: > On 25 Nov 2019, at 09:37, Gregory Casamento > wrote: > > > > * C++, while thi

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:44 schrieb Gregory Casamento : > > Nikolaus, > > With respect... > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:18 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller > wrote: > I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an > elevated point of view... > > El

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:55 schrieb Maxthon Chan : > > > >> On Nov 25, 2019, at 6:51 PM, H. Nikolaus Schaller > > wrote: >> >> >>> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:41 schrieb Maxthon Chan >> >: >>> >>> Where should we put the creativity to though? >> >> The

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:59 schrieb Gregory Casamento : > > > Nikolaus, > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:51 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller > wrote: > >> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:41 schrieb Maxthon Chan > >: >> >> Where should we put the creativity to though? >

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On 25 Nov 2019, at 10:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros > if some time is invested. > It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not* > implementing something. Fred made this claim, but he also a

Re: NSHashTable with weak objects crashing

Hi Fred, I agree that the right solution would be to put something in NSConcretePointerFunctions.h. There are basically two ways of fixing this: The first option, which I chose, was to modify the consumers of GSIMap so that they did more or less the right thing. This is fragile and prone to b

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:53 AM David Chisnall wrote: > > On 25 Nov 2019, at 09:37, Gregory Casamento wrote: > > > > * C++, while this is not exclusive to clang, gcc doesn't support the latest > > version of C++. Clang is extraordinarily good at optimization. > > I don’t think this is true. W

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:05 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > Please count me as manpower you loose by deprecating GCC (even if I > contribute only indirectly through my project mySTEP). So this is not a > simple reprioritization. > A somewhat dispassionate question so don't take this the wrong

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Nikolaus, On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:06 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > Because not everybody will follow your focus. GNUstep is not a for-profit > organization. > I'm well aware of this. I've been with the project since 1999. Lead maintainer since 2008 and maintainer of Gorm since 2002. It'

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Johannes Brakensiek wrote: > On 24 Nov 2019, at 14:16, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > Packaging libraries and development tools just because they are cool > > and it is expected that hordes of developers will write useful > > programs that utilize them is not a useful activity -- you have to > > justify

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Gregory Casamento wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:01 PM Yavor Doganov wrote: > > The answer is simple: because there's a lot to lose and nothing to > > gain. > This is patently incorrect. The gain is time and compatibility with > the latest code base. I laid out the advantages and disadvanta

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Bertrand Dekoninck wrote: > > Le 24 nov. 2019 à 02:24, Yavor Doganov a écrit : > > except probably the Rik theme > > Just my two pence here : I’ve got a gcc compatible branch of rik > (which I maintain for my ppc computers) at > https://github.com/BertrandDekoninck/rik.theme/tree/no_objc2 Thank

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Hi Yavor, On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:34, Yavor Doganov wrote: Off the top of my head, Rik theme is about the single piece of software that can't be built on stock Debian because of us sticking to GCC. NEXTSPACE relies on custom patches to GNUstep core, which means that you'll have to build your own

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 12:25 schrieb Gregory Casamento : > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:05 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller > wrote: > Please count me as manpower you loose by deprecating GCC (even if I > contribute only indirectly through my project mySTEP). So this is not a > si

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 12:09 schrieb David Chisnall : > > On 25 Nov 2019, at 10:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >> Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros >> if some time is invested. >> It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not* >

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 12:29 schrieb Gregory Casamento : > > > Nikolaus, > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:06 AM H. Nikolaus Schaller > wrote: > Because not everybody will follow your focus. GNUstep is not a for-profit > organization. > > I'm well aware of this. I've been

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On 25 Nov 2019, at 13:37, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > RISC-V is the newest GNU/Linux architecture and it's not yet supported > by Clang. Yavor, I appreciate that this is an emotional topic for you, but please can you try to confine yourself to the truth? RISC-V is a supported architecture by LLV

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

I am tempted to suggest a crazy idea: fork GNUstep, and maintain them in a similar fashion as Fedora versus RHEL/CentOS: same team, same general code base, different goal. The fork would represent the cutting edge for GNUstep, aiming to support all modern Cocoa features and hopefully one day ca

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

David Chisnall wrote: > On 25 Nov 2019, at 13:37, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > RISC-V is the newest GNU/Linux architecture and it's not yet > > supported by Clang. > > Yavor, I appreciate that this is an emotional topic for you, but > please can you try to confine yourself to the truth? The truth is

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Johannes Brakensiek wrote: > On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:34, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > Off the top of my head, Rik theme is about the single piece of > > software that can't be built on stock Debian because of us > > sticking to GCC. > > thank you for making clear your point. I understood GNUstep would >

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Am 25.11.2019 um 16:31 schrieb Yavor Doganov : > > Johannes Brakensiek wrote: >>> On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:34, Yavor Doganov wrote: >>> Off the top of my head, Rik theme is about the single piece of >>> software that can't be built on stock Debian because of us >>> sticking to GCC. >> >> thank you

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On 25 Nov 2019, at 15:08, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > David Chisnall wrote: >> On 25 Nov 2019, at 13:37, Yavor Doganov wrote: >>> RISC-V is the newest GNU/Linux architecture and it's not yet >>> supported by Clang. >> >> Yavor, I appreciate that this is an emotional topic for you, but >> please ca

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:37, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > Gregory Casamento wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:01 PM Yavor Doganov wrote: >>> The answer is simple: because there's a lot to lose and nothing to >>> gain. > >> This is patently incorrect. The gain is time and compatibility with >> t

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On 25 Nov 2019, at 17:07, Andreas Fink wrote: > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian#Architecture_ports) > > As of the Stretch release, the official ports are:[157] [ snip ] > • s390x: z/Architecture with 64-bit userland, intended to replace > s390[160] > Lets see what clang-10 supports

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:18 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller : > > Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros > if some time is invested. > It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not* > implementing something. I may not have been clear enou

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> On Nov 25, 2019, at 12:07, Andreas Fink wrote: > >> On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:37, Yavor Doganov > > wrote: >> >> Gregory Casamento wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:01 PM Yavor Doganov >> > wrote: The answer is simple: because there's a lot to

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

Look, I'm saying these things as someone that wants free software to succeed, and I wish I could write more of it. I also want GCC to be usable in the core. However, not using a better runtime than GCC's and not using an ARC-enabled compiler has costs for free software. On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 1

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

On 25 Nov 2019, at 14:07, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > I am not sure that this is the only way to implement it. > > First of all the callMethodOn returns some block which is a data structure > knowing that it should take the parameter x and do some function. > Let's call it NSBlock. NSBlock can

Re: Which ObjC2.0 features are missing in the latest GCC?

> Am 25.11.2019 um 18:40 schrieb Fred Kiefer : > > > >> Am 25.11.2019 um 11:18 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller : >> >> Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros >> if some time is invested. >> It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not*