[ ... Objective C ... ]
Chad David wrote:
> And I thought this thread was dead :).
It just showed up in the inbox last night; it must have been stuck
in your mail server. Sorry about that.
> I don't really feel a need to "convince". If people are too busy (or
> just do not care) to maintain Ob
On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 05:06:05PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Chad David wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:19:43AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > Perhaps because maintaining them in the FreeBSD repo might be the wrong
> > > place. To answer your other questiion -- because a change to fix
Chad David wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:19:43AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Perhaps because maintaining them in the FreeBSD repo might be the wrong
> > place. To answer your other questiion -- because a change to fix one
> > thing for one person might break things for 10 others.
>
> Wh
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad David<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Use thr-objc not thr-posix. thr-objc maps to the gcc generic thread
>> abstration layer and is better supported these days. It will also
>> correctly disable overhead related to threading when a program is
>> single-threade
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:47:02PM -0600, Loren James Rittle wrote:
>
> Use thr-objc not thr-posix. thr-objc maps to the gcc generic thread
> abstration layer and is better supported these days. It will also
> correctly disable overhead related to threading when a program is
> single-threaded us
* De: Loren James Rittle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-30 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Objective-C threads ]
>
> Use thr-objc not thr-posix. thr-objc maps to the gcc generic thread
> abstration layer and is better supported these days. It will also
> correctly disable o
Use thr-objc not thr-posix. thr-objc maps to the gcc generic thread
abstration layer and is better supported these days. It will also
correctly disable overhead related to threading when a program is
single-threaded using weak symbols. thr-posix doesn't do that...
Regards,
Loren
To Unsubscrib
Chad David wrote:
> In your experience, how long is the delay between gcc-patches accepting
> something and FreeBSD picking it up, ie. is it worth the effort?
Jeremey Allison (of SAMBA) and I made patches to ACAP to get it
to compile under G++, and that required patches to G++ 2.9.3 to
support per
Chad David wrote:
> > That said, if you want to make it work for you, I'm behind you
> > 100%: I think any changes you want to make are OK; they can
> > always be backed out, if anyone starts complaining about them
> > breaking things, so I think it's kind of silly for you to ask
> > for permission
* De: Chad David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-30 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Objective-C threads ]
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:22:21AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> > * De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-30 ]
> > [ Subjecte: Re: Objecti
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:22:21AM -0800, Juli Mallett wrote:
> * De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-30 ]
> [ Subjecte: Re: Objective-C threads ]
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:23:53AM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> > >
> > > Whi
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:09:16AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:23:53AM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> >
> > Which brings us back to my original question... why are ObjC threads
> > disabled? I don't much care about my other patches, I just want
> > to know who the 10 othe
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:16:26AM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> No there is no reason, and yes the changes are generic. I don't really
> expect there to be many (if any) changes to libobjc that are not generic,
> so if gcc-patches is the place to go, that is where I'll go.
It is.
> In your experi
* De: David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-30 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Objective-C threads ]
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:23:53AM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> >
> > Which brings us back to my original question... why are ObjC threads
> > disabled?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 09:23:53AM -0700, Chad David wrote:
>
> Which brings us back to my original question... why are ObjC threads
> disabled? I don't much care about my other patches, I just want
> to know who the 10 others are who will break if we enable threads,
> and how to fix that breakag
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:23:00AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:52:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > That said, if you want to make it work for you, I'm behind you
> > > 100%: I think any changes you want to make are OK; they can
> > > alway
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:19:43AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:52:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > That said, if you want to make it work for you, I'm behind you
> > 100%: I think any changes you want to make are OK; they can
> > always be backed out, if anyone star
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:17:07AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:02:16PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:11:56PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:09:41PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> > > > Does anybody know if there is a g
Hi,
I don't think many people in the FreeBSD community use
Objective-C, hence the apparent lack of a maintainer.
The proper way to submit patches to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailing list at the FSF GCC project
is to follow the procedures documented at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
If you are
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:52:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Chad David wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:04:21PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Chad David wrote:
> > > > Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> > > > thr-single.c?
> > >
> > > Historical th
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:52:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > That said, if you want to make it work for you, I'm behind you
> > 100%: I think any changes you want to make are OK; they can
> > always be backed out, if anyone starts complaining about them
> > breaking thi
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:52:56PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> That said, if you want to make it work for you, I'm behind you
> 100%: I think any changes you want to make are OK; they can
> always be backed out, if anyone starts complaining about them
> breaking things, so I think it's kind of si
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 09:02:16PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:11:56PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:09:41PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> > > Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> > > thr-single.c? As well, who
Chad David wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:04:21PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Chad David wrote:
> > > Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> > > thr-single.c?
> >
> > Historical threads problems.
>
> A few are obvious from simply reading the code. Do you
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:09:41PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> > Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> > thr-single.c? As well, who is the current maintainer of Objective-C?
>
> Few of us have ObjC clue. Do you have a patch that makes thing
* De: Chad David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [ Data: 2002-10-29 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: Objective-C threads ]
> >
> > > As well, who is the current maintainer of Objective-C?
> >
> > Chad David?
>
> By default, since there seem to be no other users?
I'm
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:04:21PM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Chad David wrote:
> > Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> > thr-single.c?
>
> Historical threads problems.
A few are obvious from simply reading the code. Do you have any
knowledge of specific (n
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:11:56PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:09:41PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> > Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> > thr-single.c? As well, who is the current maintainer of Objective-C?
>
> Few of us have ObjC c
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 07:09:41PM -0700, Chad David wrote:
> Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> thr-single.c? As well, who is the current maintainer of Objective-C?
Few of us have ObjC clue. Do you have a patch that makes things better
that you can explain t
Chad David wrote:
> Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
> thr-single.c?
Historical threads problems.
> As well, who is the current maintainer of Objective-C?
Chad David?
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current"
Does anybody know if there is a good reason why libobjc is built with
thr-single.c? As well, who is the current maintainer of Objective-C?
--
Chad David[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.FreeBSD.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISSci Inc.Calgary, Alberta Canada
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PRO
31 matches
Mail list logo
