This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PING: gimplifier ICE fix / broken GCC 4.0
- From: Helge Hess <helge dot hess at opengroupware dot org>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: GNUstep Discussion List <discuss-gnustep at gnu dot org>,Marcin Dalecki <martin at dalecki dot de>,Quentin Mathé <gnustep-quentin at club-internet dot fr>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:04:39 +0100
- Subject: Re: PING: gimplifier ICE fix / broken GCC 4.0
- References: <20041212224836.GB12335@redhat.com> <F2969112-6E51-11D9-A437-000393CBC4B6@hamburg.de> <20050124225155.GA29127@redhat.com> <41DF93D0-6EA7-11D9-8CF7-000A958AD128@club-internet.fr> <8712BD54-6EAE-11D9-B61C-000A95E3BCE4@dalecki.de>
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):
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
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.