Am 10.04.2010 00:26, schrieb David Chisnall: > On 9 Apr 2010, at 22:37, Fred Kiefer wrote: >> Looking over the ChangeLog files of base and gui (Yes, another good >> use of these files that would be annoying to be replaced with an >> SVN command), > > Because 'svn log | more' is much more effort to type than 'more > ChangeLog'? Not entirely sure I understand that logic...
Because these two give completely different results in some cases? I just tried gdl2 and could not make sense out of the report I got from svn log. Just think of me as an old fashioned person :-) >> From my point of view we could aim at an earlier release date. The >> issues I expect with the new release aren't that much in the core >> code itself, but all the applications using GNUstep should be >> checked to see how much adjustment is needed there. > > I think the important thing is not the feature freeze, so much as the > pre-release testing. Clang flags quite a few warnings when compiling > -gui at the moment, and it's worth spending a little time before the > release checking how many of these are real problems. > > A few come from our protocols not adopting the NSObject protocol, and > some come from sending messages to forward-declared classes. There > are quite a few instances where objects are passed into format > strings with %x, which is only correct on ILP32 or ILP64 platforms, > not on LP64 or LLP64 (e.g. Linux or Windows on x86-64). These should > be %p. There was one case where an integer was passed as %@, but I > think this is fixed now. > > There are also a few if statements with empty bodies, for example > GSToolbarView.m lines 346 and 363. Looking at the code, these appear > to be bugs, which should be fixed. > > There are lots of warnings where TEST_RETAIN() is used and the result > is ignored. These are important, because they can lead to subtle > bugs where an object returns something other than self from -retain. > > There are also some strange problems with RETAIN(super) and > RELEASE(super). For some reason, the fact that these expand to > [(super) retain] and not [super retain] breaks clang. This is a > clang bug, but it would be nice if we could compile cleanly anyway. > It seems that these macros are superfluous anyway, because, if we're > in a -retain method (which is the only place that they're used), we > are obviously running in a mode when -retain and -release messages > should be sent... Could you please send me a full report of these warnings? I didn't get around to install clang on my computer up to now. >> Or are there any important feature changes pending, I am not aware >> of, that should go in until next Friday? > > I'm happy to start the feature freeze today. If anyone has big blobs > of uncommitted code, we probably don't want them dumping it into the > repository just before we start pre-release testing... Fully agree here. _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
