On Mar 6, 2008, at 7:39 AM, David Ayers wrote:
Is this patch too evil, or can we do something like this?Hehe... actually, it's not evil enough. ;-) I've committed a patch that should replace the runtime implementation pointer of EOFault's forward:: method with the one of NSObject. This should also save us a level of indirection at the price of not being able to set a breakpoint in gdb for EOFault'S forward::.For gnu-gnu-gnu (i.e. the GNU runtime) forward:: is actually not called anymore so I can't really test it. Could you please let me know if thisworks for you?
Thanks! It works with the new patch below, i.e., check for NULL. I forgot to mention that it appears that forward:: is neither called nor implemented by NSObject under 10.5. It is implemented and called under 10.4.
It allows -[EOFault forward::] to work on MacOS 10.4, gets rid of some code duplicated from NSObject.m, and allows the following unimplemented methods tobe deleted from GSCategories.h and GSCompatibility.m in base:// Used only in EOFault.m, -[EOFault forward::], for Object compatibility@interface NSInvocation(GSCompatibility) - (retval_t) returnFrame:(arglist_t)args; - (id) initWithArgframe:(arglist_t)args selector:(SEL)selector; @endIndeed, if this works (and if that was really the last place these methods were used) then I'm fine with having this removed from -base.
The comment shown above is from the actual code in SVN, though I don't know if it is true. I deleted these methods in my copy and have not noticed any problems, but that's not saying much.
Thanks again, Tim
EOFault.m.diff
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
