[fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC (and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-09 Thread Stefan van den Berg
Hi, I've already asked about this on the community forums on the freepascal.org site and opened a bug on the bugtracker (bugID #4538). But none of those show any progress on a solution to the problem I'm having. First a little backstory: I'm currently, as part of an internship, porting an ap

[fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC (and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-10 Thread Stefan van den Berg
I wrote this before my reply to L505. Seems I forgot to send it. So, better lae then never, here it is. Jonas Maebe wrote: On 9 dec 2005, at 16:03, Marc Weustink wrote: http://www.freepascal.org/bugs/showsource.php3?ID=4538 Whoops, I didn't saw that there was a bugrep. No biggy. I'm

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC (and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-09 Thread Marc Weustink
Stefan van den Berg wrote: Hi, I've already asked about this on the community forums on the freepascal.org site and opened a bug on the bugtracker (bugID #4538). But none of those show any progress on a solution to the problem I'm having. First a little backstory: I'm currently, as part of

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC (and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-09 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 9 dec 2005, at 16:03, Marc Weustink wrote: Before we can say something, what functions do you call, what params, what calling convention etc. Does it happen in one specific sequence of calls, to specific functions/methods etc. Please provide some more info. http://www.freepascal.org/b

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC (and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-09 Thread Marc Weustink
Jonas Maebe wrote: On 9 dec 2005, at 16:03, Marc Weustink wrote: Before we can say something, what functions do you call, what params, what calling convention etc. Does it happen in one specific sequence of calls, to specific functions/methods etc. Please provide some more info. http:/

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC(and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-10 Thread L505
> >> Before we can say something, what functions do you call, what params, > >> what calling convention etc. > >> Does it happen in one specific sequence of calls, to specific > >> functions/methods etc. > >> > >> Please provide some more info. > > > > > > http://www.freepascal.org/bugs/showsourc

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC(and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-10 Thread Stefan van den Berg
L505 wrote: Before we can say something, what functions do you call, what params, what calling convention etc. Does it happen in one specific sequence of calls, to specific functions/methods etc. Please provide some more info. http://www.freepascal.org/bugs/showsource.php3?ID=4538 Whoops,

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC(and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-11 Thread Marc Weustink
Stefan van den Berg wrote: L505 wrote: Before we can say something, what functions do you call, what params, what calling convention etc. Does it happen in one specific sequence of calls, to specific functions/methods etc. Please provide some more info. http://www.freepascal.org/bugs/sho

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC(and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-12 Thread Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
On 12/10/05, Stefan van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The usage of strings in the samples was just to verify which code was > executed and where things went wrong. I wasen't aware of the fact that > that alone could cause problems. In the actual application mainly > objects are passed to fu

Re: [fpc-devel] Access Violation with nested DLL's compiled by FPC(and some more info on bug #4538)

2005-12-13 Thread Stefan v. d. Berg
Marc Weustink wrote: Also passing objects may couse problems. Operators like "is" will fail, since TObject defined in dll1 is not equal to TObject defined in dll2. They have the same memory layout (if compiled by the same compiler), but the class pointer is different, so they are different class