From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id E8FA93857003; Sun, 8 Nov 2020 09:25:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E8FA93857003 From: "iains at gcc dot 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, 08 Nov 2020 09:25:23 +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: In-Reply-To: References: 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2020 09:25:24 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D78352 --- Comment #15 from Iain Sandoe --- (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=20 congrats! >>so if there's any > > legislation I could pass to make it legal to apply those patches here i= n 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 n= eed 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 l= ot 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 bl= ocks 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 gro= unds that the ABI is defined by the actual output regardless of what the documentation says ;) )=20 Sorry that there hasn't been much progress on this - it *was* top of my GCC= 11 TODO list, and then Apple Si. came along and torpedoed that...=