I think GSoC is probably a good idea, and I guess I could mentor for
it, but I doubt that I'd be very good at mentoring. People have
talked about having to chase students and try to get them to do the
work, and I'm just never able to do that sort of thing effectively.
The potential
On 1 Mar 2010, at 20:16, Nicola Pero wrote:
We should not sacrifice new features or readability for the sake of
holding on to older architectures and compilers.
Also, the use of non-c99 standards does hinder contributions since we
constantly expect people who don't have access to c99
On 3 Mar 2010, at 09:48, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
David's libobjc2 code won't even build using the compiler on CentOS/Redhant
4.5 (gcc-4.1.2) and we almost certainly can't insist on people using
compilers younger than that... it's only three years old!
The only way to fix that is
On 3 Mar 2010, at 19:20, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.2/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html
In NSObject, we have a lot of code for doing atomic operations, to support
old compilers, and we still don't have (for example) fast paths for SPARC,
ARM, or MIPS unless
Am 03.03.2010 10:06, schrieb Wolfgang Lux:
Fred Kiefer wrote:
I am not that sure about this.
When I changed to the current code it was to get the Beans application
working with GNUstep. There we had the case the components loaded via
NIB where released to early by GNUstep.
We rather
On 3 Mar 2010, at 19:57, Fred Kiefer wrote:
What we need to decide soon is whether we try a GNUstep/Etoile project
or go for the bigger GNU one. Chances are higher that the later will get
accepted, but there it might turn out harder to get a GNUstep/Etoile
project through. Still after last
I think that's a good plan.
GC
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Chisnall thera...@sucs.org wrote:
On 3 Mar 2010, at 19:57, Fred Kiefer wrote:
What we need to decide soon is whether we try a GNUstep/Etoile project
or go for the bigger GNU one. Chances are higher that the later will get
