* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2020-11-07 12:36 ` grobian at gentoo dot org
2020-11-07 12:53 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: grobian at gentoo dot org @ 2020-11-07 12:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Fabian Groffen <grobian at gentoo dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |grobian at gentoo dot org
--- Comment #11 from Fabian Groffen <grobian at gentoo dot org> ---
Is there a patch or WIP somewhere I can try out or attempt to bring forwards?
My attempts at porting the 4.2.1 Apple changes to 10.1 seem to have failed as I
get some weird "byref undeclared" errors whenever a __block var is encountered.
I must admit I'm not really well versed with GCC's code.
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-11-07 12:36 ` [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages grobian at gentoo dot org
@ 2020-11-07 12:53 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-07 16:29 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-07 12:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #11)
> Is there a patch or WIP somewhere I can try out or attempt to bring forwards?
I need to bring forward my patches to the latest master, will post a link here
when that is done (it won't be soon - mainly because all time is being soaked
up with work on the arm64 port for Apple Silicon). At present, I am also trying
to resolve some of the other (smaller) objective-c issues preventing us from
parsing the system headers.
> My attempts at porting the 4.2.1 Apple changes to 10.1 seem to have failed
> as I get some weird "byref undeclared" errors whenever a __block var is
> encountered. I must admit I'm not really well versed with GCC's code.
The apple-4.2.1 branch is, indeed, too far removed from current trunk - and as
far as I understand, we would not be permitted to apply those patches anyway,
since they were not counted as contributed (not present on the FSF servers).
IANAL - but that's how I understand the rules.
It would be great to have more than one person working on this - I will post
here when the current WIP is published somewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2020-11-07 12:36 ` [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages grobian at gentoo dot org
2020-11-07 12:53 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-07 16:29 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-08 9:11 ` grobian at gentoo dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-07 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #13 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #12)
> (In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #11)
> > Is there a patch or WIP somewhere I can try out or attempt to bring forwards?
>
> I need to bring forward my patches to the latest master, will post a link
> here when that is done (it won't be soon - mainly because all time is being
> soaked up with work on the arm64 port for Apple Silicon). At present, I am
> also trying to resolve some of the other (smaller) objective-c issues
> preventing us from parsing the system headers.
>
> > My attempts at porting the 4.2.1 Apple changes to 10.1 seem to have failed
> > as I get some weird "byref undeclared" errors whenever a __block var is
> > encountered. I must admit I'm not really well versed with GCC's code.
>
> The apple-4.2.1 branch is, indeed, too far removed from current trunk - and
> as far as I understand, we would not be permitted to apply those patches
> anyway, since they were not counted as contributed (not present on the FSF
> servers). IANAL - but that's how I understand the rules.
If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws
specifically are getting in the way here, that could be helpful. I won my
election to the New Hampshire State Legislature so if there's any legislation I
could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here in NH, I'd love to know
how to write it.
>
> It would be great to have more than one person working on this - I will post
> here when the current WIP is published somewhere.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-07 16:29 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-08 9:11 ` grobian at gentoo dot org
2020-11-08 9:25 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: grobian at gentoo dot org @ 2020-11-08 9:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #14 from Fabian Groffen <grobian at gentoo dot org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13)
> If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws
> specifically are getting in the way here, that could be helpful. I won my
> election to the New Hampshire State Legislature so if there's any
> legislation I could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here in NH,
> I'd love to know how to write it.
FWIW: if Iain wrote a new patch, then we don't need Apple's original work which
from my experience, frankly is messy. There's lots of stuff in there
intertwined, so going by a specification e.g. Clang's
(https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockLanguageSpec.html) is probably the best way
forward in any case.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-08 9:11 ` grobian at gentoo dot org
@ 2020-11-08 9:25 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-09 8:20 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-08 9:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Fabian Groffen from comment #14)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13)
> > If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws
> > specifically are getting in the way here,
I would expect that the determination has been made by the FSF lawyers (but I
am not an authority here, just repeating the policy put to me when I started
work on the Darwin port, years ago).
> that could be helpful. I won my
> > election to the New Hampshire State Legislature
congrats!
>>so if there's any
> > legislation I could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here in NH,
> > I'd love to know how to write it.
IMO the technical issues with reusing 4.2.1 code are so significant that it
would be a poor use of your time chasing a way to include stuff that we'd need
to rewrite anyway (see below)
> FWIW: if Iain wrote a new patch, then we don't need Apple's original work
> which from my experience, frankly is messy.
Indeed, it isn't suitable for the current source base - there have been a lot
of changes since 4.2.1. As a secondary consideration, I also want to move
Objective-C style metadata generation until after LTO has run (and Apple blocks
also makes use of that style meta-data).
> There's lots of stuff in there
> intertwined, so going by a specification e.g. Clang's
> (https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockLanguageSpec.html) is probably the best
> way forward in any case.
Which is what I was doing + 1:1 comparison with clang's output ( on the grounds
that the ABI is defined by the actual output regardless of what the
documentation says ;) )
Sorry that there hasn't been much progress on this - it *was* top of my GCC11
TODO list, and then Apple Si. came along and torpedoed that...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-08 9:25 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-09 8:20 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-13 21:04 ` egor.pugin at gmail dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-11-09 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #13)
> If we could get in touch with an actual lawyer to review which laws
> specifically are getting in the way here, that could be helpful. I won my
> election to the New Hampshire State Legislature so if there's any
> legislation I could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here in NH,
> I'd love to know how to write it.
I assume the issue is that Apple's patches are GPLv2 and GCC is GPLv3+, and
also that FSF wants copyright assignments for patches to GCC (which is FSF
policy, not law).
Passing laws in NH to allow us to ignore the copyright holder's licence terms
and relicense them as we want would probably violate international conventions,
and would not help in other jurisdictions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-11-09 8:20 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-05-13 21:04 ` egor.pugin at gmail dot com
2022-11-05 19:23 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: egor.pugin at gmail dot com @ 2022-05-13 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #17 from Egor Pugin <egor.pugin at gmail dot com> ---
Iain, any chance of publishing your blocks patches as is?
Also what's the status of apple m1 support?
As I understand homebrew's gcc uses your patches, but I met blocks errors when
building cmake in file that includes apple frameworks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-13 21:04 ` egor.pugin at gmail dot com
@ 2022-11-05 19:23 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
2023-06-04 19:01 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: vital.had at gmail dot com @ 2022-11-05 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |vital.had at gmail dot com
--- Comment #18 from Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #15)
> Sorry that there hasn't been much progress on this - it *was* top of my
> GCC11 TODO list, and then Apple Si. came along and torpedoed that...
Any updates ever since? It seems that we need blocks to build libdispatch, and
we need libdispatch on PPC to build some useful stuff.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-05 19:23 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
@ 2023-06-04 19:01 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
2023-06-04 19:28 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: vital.had at gmail dot com @ 2023-06-04 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #19 from Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> Just to add one note, which is that Apple's gcc-4.2.1 implementation for
> blocks was not actually submitted (and therefore doesn't exist on an FSF
> server); it's my understanding that means we cannot use / forward port it.
>
> I'm working on a new version - based on trying to match what clang's current
> code-gen produces.
Is this implementation of some use for us?
https://code.google.com/archive/p/plblocks/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2023-06-04 19:01 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
@ 2023-06-04 19:28 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-11 22:55 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-06-04 19:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #19)
> (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #1)
> > Just to add one note, which is that Apple's gcc-4.2.1 implementation for
> > blocks was not actually submitted (and therefore doesn't exist on an FSF
> > server); it's my understanding that means we cannot use / forward port it.
> >
> > I'm working on a new version - based on trying to match what clang's current
> > code-gen produces.
>
> Is this implementation of some use for us?
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/plblocks/
Not for the compiler - the runtime might be useful for 10.5.
I recently brought my patches forward from GCC-5 => GCC-10 (easier to avoid the
.c => .cc file renaming). Since we now face some problems with sanitiser
support without blocks, this is moved up the TODO.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2023-06-04 19:28 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-12-11 22:55 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
2023-12-11 22:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: vital.had at gmail dot com @ 2023-12-11 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #21 from Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #20)
>
> I recently brought my patches forward from GCC-5 => GCC-10 (easier to avoid
> the .c => .cc file renaming). Since we now face some problems with
> sanitiser support without blocks, this is moved up the TODO.
Any chance of having it fixed in gcc14?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2023-12-11 22:55 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
@ 2023-12-11 22:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-31 0:58 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-12-11 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #22 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #21)
> Any chance of having it fixed in gcc14?
It is too late to be included in GCC 14, GCC is in stage 3 already, that is no
new features can be included that was not posted before a specific date. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-November/242898.html and
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html about the timing there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2023-12-11 22:58 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-12-31 0:58 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
2023-12-31 7:24 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-01 0:57 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: vital.had at gmail dot com @ 2023-12-31 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #23 from Sergey Fedorov <vital.had at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #22)
> (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #21)
> > Any chance of having it fixed in gcc14?
>
> It is too late to be included in GCC 14, GCC is in stage 3 already, that is
> no new features can be included that was not posted before a specific date.
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-November/242898.html and
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html about the timing there.
Oh…
Can new features be added into minor releases, like 14.x?
P. S. On a side note, I delayed forever my fixes for gfortran on PowerPC, will
return to that soonish, so we can get in into the master in a reasonable time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2023-12-31 0:58 ` vital.had at gmail dot com
@ 2023-12-31 7:24 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-01 0:57 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: iains at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-12-31 7:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
--- Comment #24 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #23)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #22)
> > (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #21)
> > > Any chance of having it fixed in gcc14?
> >
> > It is too late to be included in GCC 14, GCC is in stage 3 already, that is
> > no new features can be included that was not posted before a specific date.
> > See https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-November/242898.html and
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html about the timing there.
>
> Oh…
>
> Can new features be added into minor releases, like 14.x?
No. The general rule is that we only fix regressions and documentation/tests on
release branches. As Darwin maintainer, I include fixes for build/ABI problems
in back-ports (where they only effect Darwin).
Any new feature like blocks support would be much more invasive than that, so
definitely have to wait for GCC-15.
Like other "vendors", I maintain external branches for Darwin that have more
relaxed rules - allowing port-critical back ports that would not be acceptable
upstream,
However, first we have to complete this work and bring it forward to trunk ..
then we can worry about back ports to older branched ;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread* [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to the C family of languages
[not found] <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2023-12-31 7:24 ` iains at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-01 0:57 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-01 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78352
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://github.com/apple/sw
| |ift-corelibs-libdispatch/is
| |sues/765
--- Comment #25 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Cross-referencing against
https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-libdispatch/issues/765
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread