Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results

[Fred Kiefer]

I am not that sure about this. gcc 2.95 is a very old version, but it
still has its own merits. It was the most popular release before the
re-architecture and in many cases it is still faster than the later gcc
releases. It also is in some cases the only version of gcc at hand. (I
had to learn this when trying to do cross compilation of GNUstep)

I agree with all of you that we should not waste to much effort on
getting it working, but in this specific case, we have just one method
that is failing and we know that up to a certain date this wasn't the
case. Perhaps it is not too hard to sort out this method?
Adam, which one is this method? And are you willing to test different
implementations? BTW which version of gcc 2.95 is installed, 2.95.2 or
2.95.3?

Fred


Gregory John Casamento schrieb:
> Allow me to clarify, before anyone asks, we should only support gcc 3.0
> and greater.
>  
> --
> Gregory John Casamento
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gregory John Casamento <address@hidden>
> To: Andrew Ruder <address@hidden>; Developer GNUstep <address@hidden>
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 1:14:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results
> 
> Adam/Andy,
> 
> Just to add my $0.02...
> 
> The gcc-2.95 compiler is quite old, we should consider problems that
> arise because of issues relating to gcc 2.95 to be non-release critical
> for GNUstep. 
> 
> We shouldn't go out of our way to break GNUstep for gcc 2.95, but we
> should not bend over backwards to fix issues related to it either.
> 
> Later, GJC
> --
> Gregory John Casamento
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrew Ruder <address@hidden>
> To: Developer GNUstep <address@hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:41:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results
> 
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 04:02:01PM -0600, Adam Fedor wrote:
>> I narrowed it down to one method, but that doesn't really help much.
>> On the solaris, I'm still using the 2.95 compiler, mostly to check for
>> backward compatibility. Perhaps I should just upgrade and start
>> deprecating support for gcc 2.95?
> 
> The way I see it, gcc 3.0 was released on June 18, 2001.  This is more
> than 5 years ago.  In the technology world, that is a very long, long
> time.  If there's really platforms that don't have gcc 3 or higher,
> maybe it is just time for those platforms to be depracated (or they can
> use an older version of gnustep).