On 10 May 2007, at 12:35, Nicola Pero wrote:
On May 8, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Riccardo wrote:
Hi,
trying to compile NSAnimation on older compilers is a nightmare
(like gcc 2.95). I fixed some trivial stuff, but then stopped: the
main problem is the _NSANIMATION_LOCK macro. Since this macro
defines a variable in it,
#define _NSANIMATION_LOCK \
BOOL __gs_isLocked = NO; \
if (_isThreaded) \
{ \
__gs_isLocked = YES; \
NSDebugFLLog(@"NSAnimationLock",\
@"%@ LOCK %@",self,[NSThread currentThread]);\
[_isAnimatingLock lock]; \
}
it causes a hidden "c99-ism" everywhere. If the definition of
__gs_isLocked inside the macron can be avoided or the macroitself
can be avoided, I think the code would be cleaner.
This looks pretty bad, not only because it doesn't compile with GCC
2.95, but also because that variable defined in the middle of
nowhere is very ugly ... unclear
scope (what happens if you have two _NSANIMATION_LOCK in
sequence ? is the same variable being used or different
variables ?) ... ;-)
I fixed this to make __gs_isLocked an ivar rather than declaring it
locally (which was pretty suboptimal). I also fixed a bug in the
unlock macro (it was setting the lag to the wrong value), and added
assertions to check that the macro is not misused.
Is there a flag we can pass to ask GCC to refuse c99-isms ? There
must be one.
Not that I know of ... and I did look for it once before.
Shall we add this to the core library makefiles ? That way we are
more positive that the code should compile with 2.95 because nobody
will be able to commit c99-isms without breaking compilation with
all versions
of GCC. :-)
I'd certainly like such a flag to be added if you can find one.
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
