https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #17 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to m...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #16) > We can fixincludes NS_BLOCKS_AVAILABLE support back in, this would disappear > interfaces that cannot be supported. In the past, this was a safe thing to > do, and might well be still safe wrt the runtime. > > Deeper language issues would likely need someone to do real work. No really > nice fix for that other than someone who wanted to do the work stepping > forward. Until then, SDK support for older OSes might be the old way to get > code compiled on newer systems. > > We should be able to steal code from MIT style runtimes to put into newer > systems, if we can get FSF approval for incorporating code they don't own. > This should be easy enough, we don't vend sell or ship a competing abi > compatible runtime, so, bundling one I think should be trivial, if we want > to. two things here: (1) making FSF ObjC useful again on Darwin - the only solution there realistically is to implement blocks [TBH, this applies outside of ObjC too]. Likely there are two candidates for that job - mrs and ids .. ;) .. if there were some way to split the task up.. I believe this is rapidly becoming a show-stopper for FSF GCC on darwin. :( (2) Having a non-fragile ObjC library on Linux (and/or other interested *nix hosts). My understanding is that David Chisnall's libobjc2 might fit the bill for this (BSD license) ..
