https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651
--- Comment #22 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #21) > (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #20) > > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #18) > > > For the record with darwin15 I had to add > > > > > > /System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Versions/C/Headers/ > > > NSEnumerator.h > > > /System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Versions/C/Headers/NSObject.h > > > /System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Versions/C/Headers/NSValue.h > > > > > > from the 10.9 SDK to > > > > > > /System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Versions/C/Headers/NSArray.h > > > /System/Library/Frameworks/Foundation.framework/Versions/C/Headers/NSString.h > > > /usr/include/objc/NSObject.h > > > > that seems dangerous > > Not so dangerous as it seems. > > Many (most, in fact) of the failures seen from GCC Objective-C are caused by > missing support for new features that have been introduced into the vendor's > headers. Short list: Apple Blocks, Lightweight Generics, Nullability, > Syntactic sugar on ID. Blocks support at least is bug 78352; are there bugs open for the other 3? > I'm working on a set of replacement test-suite headers that allow us to > test the things that _do_ work on GCC Objective-C, and expose any real > regressions. > > Tests on Darwin13 and earlier show that we are not in such bad shape as the > header fails make it appear. > > I hope to get these test fixes (there's a set of three PRs related to excess > fails on Yosemite+) in place soon - and to back port them to the open > branches.
