From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-466051-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22296 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2014 14:22:12 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21779 invoked by uid 48); 8 Nov 2014 14:22:07 -0000
From: "howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/63651] Lot of failures in obj(c|-c++) with yosemite
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2014 14:22:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-63651-4-gPZLDlEeV6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63651-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63651-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63651

--- Comment #7 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #5)
> (In reply to Francois-Xavier Coudert from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > > Does it means that 'id' should be replaced with 'instancetype' in failing
> > > tests? What about the gnu-runtime?
> > 
> > No, we need to make the compiler understand 'instancetype'.
> 
> sadly, we spend almost all our darwin (volunteer) time chasing fall-out from
> other patches and very little remains for working on new features :-(
> 
> I'd love to modernise the ObjC stuff - bearing in mind that the biggest
> killer there is that we don't support blocks in GCC (ObjC is essentially not
> much usable on darwin >= 11, without that).
> 
> on the TODO ..

If I remember correctly, the blocks issue is problematic because of the blocks
runtime's license, so that whole package would have to be reverse engineered to
be under GPLv3, no?