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

[Ziemowit Laski]

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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg00925.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> When? Where?
>>>>
>>>> Lars should have remembered because he pinged it too.
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-12/msg00889.html
>>>
>>> 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... :-(

--Zem