Re: Deprecating ffcall

[Wolfgang Lux]

Fred Kiefer wrote:

> This may sound strange, coming from my side as I already advocated the
> use of libffi when it still supported less platforms than ffcall,  
> but I
> strongly advocate that we phase out support for ffcall very slowly.
>
> Remember that only two years ago somebody suggested that we should  
> drop
> support for libffi :-)

Since the one who suggested that (a bit provocatively) was me, I  
probably
should state that I'm perfectly happy with deprecating ffcall. In  
fact, the
main argument of the rant was that GNUstep should support just one  
callback
implementation (either ffcall or libffi) and the reason for preferring
ffcall at that time was a bug in message forwarding as implemented on  
top
of libffi. Since this has been fixed since then and I'm working on some
machines that do not even have a working ffcall implementation (e.g.,  
Mac
OS X on Intel; at least I wasn't able to get it working there) I would
happily let ffcall support go.

> And please remember even asking on the discussion list wont be  
> enough to
> find out whether anybody still needs ffcall. People will only start to
> complain after its gone.

Indeed. So let's drop ffcall and eventually restore it later if (too)  
many
people complain?

Wolfgang