GNUstep - Patches: patch #3498, Fix some parameter names in C...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
patch #3498: Fix some parameter names in C function definitions
Submitter: | Patrick Middleton <patrickx> | ||
Submitted: | Tue 02 Nov 2004 02:57:33 PM UTC | ||
Category: | AppKit | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | Invalid | Privacy: | Public |
Assigned to: | None | Open/Closed: | Closed |
Fri 05 Nov 2004 04:39:06 PM UTC, comment #2: |
Patrick Middleton <patrickx> |
Thu 04 Nov 2004 08:13:22 PM UTC, comment #1: I never heard of such a compiler bug. Could you please give an expample of the error you are getting? I have been compiling GNUstep wiht various gcc releases on both Linux and Windows (with Cygwin though) and never did get such a warning/error. |
Fred Kiefer <FredKiefer> |
Tue 02 Nov 2004 02:57:33 PM UTC, original submission:
Because of what appears to be a known bug/misfeature in the ObjC compiler, type information associated with parameter names in function definitions is remembered and causes compilation errors when the same parameter names are used with different type in ObjC method definitions.
|
Patrick Middleton <patrickx> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 3 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2004-11-11 | fedor | Status | None | Invalid | |
Open/Closed | Open | Closed | |||
2004-11-02 | patrickx | Attached File | - | Added AppKit-function-definitions.patch, #3845 |
Powered by Savane 3.13-4448.
Corresponding source code
Cough.
It appears my problem report was thoroughly bogus, and the patch I submitted is redundant. In order to get out some macro definition information, I added -dM to ADDITIONAL_OBJCFLAGS. Except what I actually added was -Dm . I'd have realised my error sooner, except that I saw the problem I was describing several years ago with the NeXT-supplied gcc 2.7.2.1. Still, it makes a novel argument against the use of single-letter variable names.
Grin?