This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING: PATCH: PR objc/18408 (but really a gimplifier fix)
- From: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>
- To: Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf <lars dot sonchocky-helldorf at hamburg dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:48:45 -0800
- Subject: Re: PING: PATCH: PR objc/18408 (but really a gimplifier fix)
- References: <1EF878C5-6B4E-11D9-A437-000393CBC4B6@hamburg.de>
On 20 Jan 2005, at 17.45, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Freitag, 21.01.05 um 02:12 Uhr schrieb Ziemowit Laski:
On 20 Jan 2005, at 17.01, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Am Freitag, 21.01.05 um 01:30 Uhr schrieb Andrew Pinski:
On Jan 20, 2005, at 7:15 PM, Ziemowit Laski wrote:
On 20 Jan 2005, at 16.15, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jan 20, 2005, at 6:39 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
This patch for http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18408
is unreviewed for more than two month now. Is there really
nobody who can approve it? Come on somebody with approval
privileges *must* be gimple literate.
It was reviewed and got rejected.
Lars should have remembered because he pinged it too.
Oh, my bad.
Ok, I seem to recall this also. :-( RTH is right in that the ObjC
type system representation is inconsistent, but that is really
orthogonal to whether the patch I proposed is safe or not. A rewrite
of the type representation (to bring it closer in line with C++/Java)
is planned, but in the gcc-4.1 time frame at the earliest.
Does that mean - in other words - gcc-4.0 will be of no use for the
GNUstep people or will you provide an interim fix?
The interim fix is the one that we're currently discussing (and which
has been rejected).
And - while we are on it - what's the status of ObjC++ for mainline?
Is it still worked on or got that scrapped too?
Unfortunately, my Apple duties have overwhelmed me. Hopefully I can
get back to ObjC++ in a few weeks... :-(