RE: libobjc

[Nicola Pero]

Time for a bit of politics/strategy :-)

The official idea is that we'd like in the future to use the standard
official GCC compiler.  It's quite some time we have this wish ... to drop
the requirement of installing a custom/patched libobjc ... which makes
installation more complex, requires us (the gnustep people) to maintain
more code, and doesn't share our Objective-C efforts with other
people/companies Objective-C efforts ...

The good news is - we have already reached this goal - if you use GCC
3.0.x, you don't need any custom/patched libobjc ... and ideally we'd like
everyone in - say - a year's time - to be using the standard GCC
Objective-C compiler and runtime which comes shipped on their
distributions without having to do anything special.  our shared patched
libobjc will then become a thing of the past.

Using the standard official GCC means we need to follow a bit on its
development ... to make sure the shipped GCC Objective-C compiler and
runtime are of good quality ... which has not always been the case in the
past few years ...

But currently Objective-C support in the newest GCCs is considerably
better than previously.

So, if you want my `official' answer, yes, GCC 3.0.x is better (more
blessedly supported) than GCC 2.95.x + patched shared gnustep libobjc,
though the actual practical difference might be little or none.

If you want the details of the differences, well you can look at the
ChangeLogs ... but even if the patched shared libobjc available on the
gnustep site contains all the changes which have gone into the 3.0.x
release of gcc, still we want to encourage people to switch to gcc 3.0.x
anyway ... for the strategy/politics reasons explained above ... our long
term plans are to drop the gnustep custom libobjc, and have people use the
GCC's default official standard libobjc.

consider that sooner or later you will have to switch to gcc 3.x anyway,
as distributions will stop shipping gcc 2.95.x and start shipping gcc 3.x.

if you're running under windows, well the shared gnustep libobjc runs but
- I think - the one from GCC doesn't ... but this is the point - perhaps
it would be a good idea to try have the official GCC Objective-C support
running on windows ...

> Group,
> 
>   I am to understand that GCC 3 (or 3.0.1) is the preferred method for
> libobjc above all others -- including the libobjc patch 1.0.1 provided at
> the gnustep site?
> 
>   I ask this because I do believe I can get things running on GCC 3.0.1 --
> but our initial port was with 2.95.3 plus the libobjc patch...
> 
>   If there is much to be gained in moving to 3.0.1 I'd like to know -- so I
> can get a transistion underway...
> 
>   So, group?  What's the good word?  Should one stay or go to GCC 3.0.1 at
> his/her earliest convienice in this situation?
> 
>   What issues does this (really -- or purportedly) resolve?
> 
>   Thanks in advance!  And kudos for a very helpful and invaluable list
> community!!!!
> 
> -b
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-gnustep-admin@gnu.org
> [mailto:discuss-gnustep-admin@gnu.org]On Behalf Of Richard
> Frith-Macdonald
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2001 12:42 AM
> To: Dan Pascu
> Cc: GNUstep
> Subject: Re: libobjc
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, November 18, 2001, at 11:24 PM, Dan Pascu wrote:
> 
> >
> > is the libobjc included in gcc-2.95.4 ok?
> > the readme in libobjc under dev-apps in GNUstep says it fixes some
> > things not present in gcc-2.95.2. what about 2.95.4?
> >
> 
> Nope .... for a good libobjc you need to go to at least gcc-3.0
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>