From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 541173858C2B; Sun,  4 Jun 2023 19:28:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 541173858C2B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1685906885;
	bh=toBJPk3SdcyO4HVYF1iIY8SO0fLOsOyERv7XPs5Y6Jo=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DjYaq+oZ57Tceb9VRFfhZWgc1uiRfrhf5A9tlPV+atoUUDeA91x/Ev7buNvIDDgyb
	 2cEocxTSZ8r5sKCnqTEzcnT2yLwPppn2iuR+5A2hwulksFsFTPc7xgGjUZQIV5ZULw
	 Zky+oGOeJcMKrMMMbjFJkhdB6f9sgCSRBcCcy9wo=
From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/78352] GCC lacks support for the Apple "blocks" extension to
 the C family of languages
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2023 19:28:05 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 7.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: iains at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-78352-4-kUXCcIbsBU@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-78352-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D78352

--- 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.
> >=20
> > I'm working on a new version - based on trying to match what clang's cu=
rrent
> > code-gen produces.
>=20
> 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 =3D> GCC-10 (easier to avo=
id the
.c =3D> .cc file renaming).  Since we now face some problems with sanitiser
support without blocks, this is moved up the TODO.=