Forgot to cc the list. That's what I get for trying to do anything in my
phone.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Stefan Bidigaray" <stefanb...@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 4, 2016 12:25
Subject: Re: CoreBase problem with INIT_CFRUNTIME_BASE
To: "Sergio L. Pascual" <s...@sinrega.org>
Cc:
It was not an intended change. I was probably doing something dumb and
forgot to delete that change before committing.
I do not have access to any of my development machines right now (I'm on
the prices of moving) so can't make changes. Would someone mind
unconsenting that line and deleting the other?
Thanks
On Apr 4, 2016 12:14, "Sergio L. Pascual" <s...@sinrega.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On my machine, 32 tests of CoreBase are failing like this:
>
> CFRuntime.c:381: CFTypeRef CFRetain(CFTypeRef): Assertion `result <
> 2147483647' failed.
>
> I've traced down the problem to these lines
> (Headers/CoreFoundation/CFRuntime.h:126):
>
> <---- snip ---->
> struct __CFRuntimeBase
> {
> void *_isa;
> /**< The Objective-C class for this object. Used for the
> Objective-C
> bridge. <em>For internal use only.</em> */
> SInt16 _typeID;
> struct
> {
> SInt16 ro: 1;
> SInt16 reserved: 7;
> SInt16 info: 8;
> } _flags;
> };
>
> //#define INIT_CFRUNTIME_BASE(...) { 0, 0, { 1, 0, 0 } }
> #define INIT_CFRUNTIME_BASE(...) { 0, 0x00008000 }
> <---- snip ---->
>
> With the uncommented definition, _flags.ro is left uninitialized, which
> causes problems later when CFRetain checks it to see if the object has
> a "retained" field. The commented version works fine.
>
> This new definition was introduced in the last commit. Was that an
> intended change? Am I missing something?
>
> Sergio.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnustep-dev mailing list
> Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
