[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GCC 3.4 / libobjc / mframe issues
From: |
David Ayers |
Subject: |
Re: GCC 3.4 / libobjc / mframe issues |
Date: |
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:00:18 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707 |
Adam Fedor wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2004, at 3:18 PM, David Ayers wrote:
>
>>I've had several private conversations (esp. w. Richard) and the sum
>>of it seems to be that we could:
>>
>>-- remove sanity checks wrt the layout information in method signatures
>>-- deprecate --disable-do and require either ffi or ffcall
>
> --disable-do is only for apple-apple-apple anyway.
>
True, thanks.
>
>>-- deprecate some of the NSMethodSignature methods
>> part of OpenStep:
>> NSArgumentInfo
>> -argumentInfoAtIndex: (not part of Cocoa)
>> public GNUstep extensions:
>> -methodInfo
>>
>>I believe this to be an option only because these methods currently
>>return unreliable information so I can't imagine anything actually
>>relying on it. But maybe it works on some platforms, so I would
>>really appreciate some feedback if anyone is using this.
>>
>>We would temporarily keep the mframe code so we can send the buggy
>>layout information in signatures for DO so that older systems won't
>>crash at the new layout of gcc. We can stop sending that info later
>>and have 2.1 work with 2.0 which doesn't have the sanity checks but it
>>will not be able to talk to 1.9 which still has them. At that point
>>we can start looking at what we can kick out.
>>
>>Adam, is this the only thing holding back the release or are you also
>>waiting on the GNUstep.sh issue as it seems to be something worth 2.0
>>also.
>>
>
> I was going to call it 1.10, but 2.0 is fine for me.
By all means, do call it 1.10! I thought there was a discussion about
this and the consensus was 2.0 but I guess I was hallucinating.
Personally, I'd much prefer 1.10.
>
> I'm happy now that we have a plan for GNUstep.sh. I'm not sure I want
> to wait for a fix, unless we can find a temporary one, or fix what
> appear to be simple bugs with gnustep-make not treating
> GNUSTEP_SYSTEM_ROOT, etc correctly. I'm going to try to make a list of
> important bugs in the next few days and see if there is anything else I
> really want fixed.
>
Thanks!
David
PS: Anyone, comments on deprecating those methods?