This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PING: PATCH: PR objc/18408 (but really a gimplifier fix)

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 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.

When? Where?

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... :-(


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]