Re: GCC 3.4 / libobjc / mframe issues

[Adam Fedor]

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.

> -- 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.

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.