From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 30 20:54:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5959106566B for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:54:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rittle@latour.labs.mot.com) Received: from mail55.messagelabs.com (mail55.messagelabs.com [216.82.241.163]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739268FC14 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:54:18 +0000 (UTC) X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: rittle@latour.labs.mot.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-55.messagelabs.com!1259614453!88457408!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [136.182.1.14] Received: (qmail 8169 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2009 20:54:13 -0000 Received: from motgate4.mot.com (HELO motgate4.mot.com) (136.182.1.14) by server-4.tower-55.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Nov 2009 20:54:13 -0000 Received: from il27exr04.cig.mot.com (il27exr04.mot.com [10.17.196.73]) by motgate4.mot.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAUKs8Y6002261; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:54:08 -0700 (MST) Received: from il27vts02.mot.com (il27vts02.cig.mot.com [10.17.196.86]) by il27exr04.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/Vontu) with SMTP id nAUKs8cB026021; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:54:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from latour.labs.mot.com (latour.labs.mot.com [10.2.201.16]) by il27exr04.cig.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id nAUKs7Cv026015; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:54:07 -0600 (CST) Received: from latour.labs.mot.com (localhost.labs.mot.com [127.0.0.1]) by latour.labs.mot.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAUKqqxV056950; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:52:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rittle@latour.labs.mot.com) Received: (from rittle@localhost) by latour.labs.mot.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nAUKqqV0056947; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:52:52 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rittle) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:52:52 -0600 (CST) From: Loren James Rittle Message-Id: <200911302052.nAUKqqV0056947@latour.labs.mot.com> To: Gerald Pfeifer In-reply-to: (message from Gerald Pfeifer on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:31:25 +0100 (CET)) References: <4B050C0B.3010305@douglasthrift.net> User-Agent: SEMI/1.14.4 (Hosorogi) FLIM/1.14.4 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Kashiharaji?= =?ISO-8859-4?Q?ng=FE-mae?=) LEMI/1.14.1 Emacs/22.3 (i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, douglas@douglasthrift.net Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: gcc-4.4.3.20091117 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: rittle@labs.mot.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:54:19 -0000 In article , Gerald Pfeifer writes: > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Douglas Thrift wrote: >> I'm currently working with a friend on a new project >> (http://www.cycript.org/) that uses Objective-C++ for its bindings to >> GNUstep. Would it be possible to add a knob or something to the gcc >> ports to enable Objective-C++ support? > The best approach would be checking with upstream why Objective-C (and > Objective-C++) are not enabled by default on FreeBSD, which I believe > is a change from earlier versions. Loren, do you know? > In general, I'd be open to add something to the lang/gcc45 (preferred > initially) and lang(gcc44 ports if you'd like to suggest a patch, Douglas. > Gerald Hello, I just returned to the office (and related e-mail). Objective-C is enabled by default for FreeBSD in the FSF source release. It has been for as long as I can remember. It is my understanding that Objective-C++ is not enabled by default for any platform. I do not know if it even builds for FreeBSD. According to gcc/objcp/config-lang.in : # Per GCC Steering Committee. build_by_default="no" Therefore either: (1) You need to manually configure with --enable-languages=obj-c++ (which I think could be enabled by a FreeBSD port collection knob with a default of "no" to honor the request of the GCC Steering Committee) (2) Contact a member of the GCC Steering Committee to understand why the default is as such and whether an OS port collection may override the default. Sorry, I don't know the history here. Regards, Loren