> On 25 Nov 2019, at 11:18, H. Nikolaus Schaller <[email protected]> wrote: > > I know that I likely start a flame war, but watching the discussion from an > elevated point of view... > >> Am 25.11.2019 um 10:30 schrieb Gregory Casamento <[email protected]>: >> * Compatibility, much of the API is moving towards using blocks. Blocks *ARE >> NOT SUPPORTED* on GCC and aren't likely to be anytime in the near future. > > Hm, where has our own creativity gone? > > Fred mentioned that it could be possible to define some block wrapper macros > if some time is invested. > It that works out, we do not make our decisions depend on gcc *not* > implementing something. > > So this argument for moving to clang looks more like an excuse that we do not > work on our own gcc compatible solution, isn't it? > > -- hns
using the same argument you can say we could use assember by creating some tools to output assembler first. As David pointed out, its a hell of a lot of work for no benefit and dragging along old workarounds which lead to problems and performance impacts.
