Steve Youngs <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> * Zajcev Evgeny <zevlg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Nelson Ferreira <nelson.ferreira@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> On the other hand if SXEmacs is to only support GCC as the compiler
> >> then C++ compiling can be dropped because then a conscious choice
> >> of "development platform" will have been made. (And then we should
> >> make sure we publish the minimum gcc version it requires).
>
> > I would like to see SXEmacs compilable with gcc, icc and suncc
> > .. and support for wide range of gcc(as most general compiler)
> > versions starting from 2XX to 4XX ..
>
> OK, here's what we'll do...
>
> o Directly support _only_ GCC from version 2.95.3 onwards. And I
> reserve the right to bump the min compiler version in the future
> if things change and we need a newer, sexier compiler. :-)
>
> o Update _all_ the docs that mention anything about compiling
> SXEmacs to say something like:
>
> You need GCC (min version 2.95.3) or compatible C compiler to
> build SXEmacs. Everyone on the SXEmacs development team uses
> GCC, so we can't ensure that it compiles with any other
> compiler. However, if your compiler is compatible with GCC
> version 2.95.3, it should work. SXEmacs _CANNOT_ be built
> with a C++ compiler.
>
> o Drop the `--with-sxemacs-compiler' autoconf option.
>
> o Mark bug #8 as "WONT FIX" with reason: "Compiling with a C++
> compiler is no longer supported"
>
> Before I do this (next few days), is there anyone who vehemently
> disagrees with this?
>
If bug #8 is the *only* reason to drop C++ compilers support - then i
disagree :)
As Nelson has mentioned that if C code compiles with C++ compiler then
the code is more compatible across different C compilers - that makes
reason for me to keep supporting it, because i'm sure someday i will
try to compile SXEmacs with some other (then gcc) compiler ..
So, if the question only in closing bug #8 - i better fix effi.c :))
Can we wait with droping supporting C++ for half a year or so, to see
whether droping is really needed? Droping needed only in situation
when supporting gives lesser benefits than effort provided to keep
support -- and i think we are not yet in situation like this ..
--
lg
|