Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Apple's dislike of GPLv3 is a problem for gcc, yes. > > Well, excuse me for being a-political, but I don't see this problem. > The relationship between GCC and Apple has never been really good > AFAIK, but that hasn't hampered either to be quite successful.
I agree with you, but if you don't look at GCC as a whole -- but rather at the small intersection represented by FSF GCC on Darwin -- it *has* hampered it. Apple GCC is basically a fork nowadays, and it is often impossible to compile Leopard application using FSF GCC (in turn because of the lack of Objective-C 2.0 support). Sometimes I wonder why Darwin is still part of FSF GCC, just like it is not supported in binutils or gdb... I guess just for the sake of GCC developers that are working on a Mac. Even outside *-*-darwin*, what caused the development of two separate Objective-C runtimes, the one in FSF GCC being a big chainball for the removal of dead code from the compiler? Note that basically all Objective-C code in existence either does not care about the runtime, or has support for both runtimes; so it would not be a problem to deprecate libobjc if Apple contributed their own implementation. (There is now a third runtime, named Étoilé). Paolo ps: of course, there is no offense intended for poor Mike who's CCed in this thread.
