Hi Karel,
First, thanks for answering my e-mail.
On Sunday 12 June 2011 18:04:23 you wrote:
> the same as your previous patch. This one also assumes something
> which is not in spec. Please see following snipped from the "OMG IDL
> Syntax and Semantics 3" -- definitions which applies to both your
Hi Karel,
First, thanks for answering my e-mail.
On Sunday 12 June 2011 18:04:23 you wrote:
> the same as your previous patch. This one also assumes something
> which is not in spec. Please see following snipped from the "OMG IDL
> Syntax and Semantics 3" -- definitions which applies to both your
Hi Victor,
thanks a lot for your patch. It's correct and solving your issue, but
I'm afraid here you hit different bug in MICO than what you thought.
First of all, I'd like to let you know that following CORBA spec, at
least as I read it (strickly) is that the construct you are using in
myidl
Hi Victor,
the same as your previous patch. This one also assumes something which
is not in spec. Please see following snipped from the "OMG IDL Syntax
and Semantics 3" -- definitions which applies to both your cases.
You see that in both cases, your value shall inherit from
which is just an
Hi,
On Sunday 05 June 2011 17:51:32 Victor Fusco wrote:
> I am receiving a segfault when trying to generate code for a
> valuetype. I think it has something to do with the valuetype
> supporting an interface that is an alias.
I hit another case of the valuetype alias problem, but this time I got
Hi,
I am receiving a segfault when trying to generate code for a valuetype.
I think it has something to do with the valuetype supporting an
interface that is an alias.
I have isolated the problem using the two idl files attached. You can
reproduce it running "idl -I. myidl2.idl".
I also atta
