Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results

[Gregory John Casamento]

Riccardo,

> In any case, and I know I think differently than several people here, I
> would prefer to retain gcc 2.95 compatibility at least for the core
> libraries and, if possible, for all "GNUstep supplied" applications. Or,
> at least, the fundamental ones: gorm, project center, system preferences
> and if possible gworkspace.

So basically all of GNUstep, is what you're saying.   This seems to run
counter to what we're discussing.   The problem is that there are too
many limitations we must impose on the code in order to maintain that
compatibility, as I described in my previous posting.

> Of course this does not apply top linux/x86 which almost everyone uses.
> It is just for the 1% of the remaining 1%. But it is one of the reasons
> why I always liked gnustep.

GNUstep needs to move forward, we can't be held back by the 0.01% of people
who might be using it on an ancient architecture.

While we should strive to have a wide variety of machines, we shouldn't
go out of our way to make it work on machines which are no longer in common
use.
 

--
Gregory John Casamento

----- Original Message ----
From: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Cc: Fred Kiefer <address@hidden>; Developer GNUstep <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 4:26:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Gnustep-cvs] GNUstep Testfarm Results

Hello,

On Friday, August 11, 2006, at 12:02 AM, 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?

I used to regularly test on gcc 2.95 the core libraries on various
platforms. It is just that lately I was too busy with other important
life tasks.

In any case, and I know I think differently than several people here, I
would prefer to retain gcc 2.95 compatibility at least for the core
libraries and, if possible, for all "GNUstep supplied" applications. Or,
at least, the fundamental ones: gorm, project center, system preferences
and if possible gworkspace.

I do not want to enter the eternal gcc 2.9 versus gcc3.x or gcc 4.x
discussion. Mountains of ascii bytes have been spilled about that. I
know 2.95 has many problems. Even Linus Torvalds spoke about the issue.
I just want to remember that newer gcc's are not a good option on more
than one platform (mostly because of C++, not because of obj-c or C
itself) and that gcc guys aren't that happy anymore to fix problems on
arcane platforms as they did on 2.9 series. Furthermore not everybody
may want to upgrade gcc (possibly because the box is managed by others
and 2.95 is the easiest choice) and having more than one compiler
installed (of which some are incomplete, like lacking C++ or in any case
have big api differences like 2.95 and 3.x have) is cumbersome.

Of course this does not apply top linux/x86 which almost everyone uses.
It is just for the 1% of the remaining 1%. But it is one of the reasons
why I always liked gnustep.

Regarding solaris and the bug in discussion, I have gcc 3.x installed so
we can check this out too. On Sparc but OpenBSD I have 2.95.

I will resume testing on more arcane platforms ASAP.

Have fun,
   Riccardo



_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev