This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: gimplifier ICE fix / broken GCC 4.0


On Jan 25, 2005, at 9:53, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Just a note please don't forget about opengroupware, which is in fact using ObjC as well.

Yes, we are very much concerned about the current discussion of getting a broken GCC 4.0. It basically implies that you won't be able to compile OpenGroupware.org without significant additional effort on upcoming Linux distributions.


I think there are currently three important free software projects using cc1obj (without an own fork, like Apple):
- Swarm
- OpenGroupware.org
- GNUstep
Together several millions of lines of free software code rendered useless by the breakage.


A comparison with gcj is a bit ridiculous since cc1obj was working just fine since something like 1990? And now, in 2005 a whole language is dropped and several projects are left in the rain just because the GCC core developers are unwilling to spend some thoughts and a few hours per year on fixing an issue raised by changes in C/C++?

Honestly I don't understand the technical issue at hand but I can hardly believe that the issue involves something which isn't trivial to fix by one of the core maintainers who broke cc1obj in the first place (absolutly *NO* offense intended here, don't get me wrong).

There was a discussion some months back on why the ObjC++ patches can't be applied to GCC. The (IMHO) correct justification was that the one who patches has to ensure that other frontends still work - just the usual don't-break-other-peoples-stuff which is regular practice in free software projects. I fail to see why this doesn't hold true in the other direction.

Having said that, I understand the points of Mark as well. I just assume that we are not talking about several days of development but about some good will by the C/C++ developers to acknowledge that there is another frontend.

Creating a seperate GCC community just for cc1obj is obviously nonsense. Getting into GCC is a life-time project while the fixes are just minor issues. Remember that cc1obj was working for years. We don't need to have it extended, we don't want to add additional functionality, we just want to ensure that changes in the C frontend do not break the ObjC one. That shouldn't be too much to ask for.

I *very* much hope that FSF will take some authority and step in and resolve this issue. Either by paying someone to fix the issue at hand or by modifying the release criteria for GCC. After all GCC and GNUstep are both FSF projects. Releasing GCC 4.0 without ObjC will hurt the free software world.

best regards,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org


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