Closed
Bug 34553
Opened 25 years ago
Closed 25 years ago
Problem compiling under BeOS see include patches for fixes.
Categories
(Core :: XPCOM, defect, P2)
Tracking
()
VERIFIED
FIXED
M16
People
(Reporter: ykoehler, Assigned: dp)
Details
Attachments
(3 files)
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review | |
(deleted),
patch
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
Most problem we're having is due to XP_BEOS missing and a problem with the GNU
compiler we have. Please check the attachment and checked in. I'm missing
check in permission at the present time.
Reporter | ||
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
Priority: P3 → P1
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•25 years ago
|
||
We are frozen for M15 now. I will check it in once the tree opens.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed: true
Assignee | ||
Updated•25 years ago
|
With the exception of the diffs checking for gcc 2.95+, this patch has been
checked in. Given the platform specific nature of the patch and the lack of an
alternative (beos5 only comes gcc 2.95+, right?), I'd argue that this change is
worth checking in as it has no chance of upsetting the stability of M15 for the
tier 1 platforms.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•25 years ago
|
||
Well the reason for the diff in regards to the GNU stuff is because Fred Fish
(owner of GNU stuff?) did fix a COMPILER bug which was causing that to failed
compiling. So it's not platform specific but Compiler specific, I've enclosed
that inside BEOS just to get the fix approve faster ;-)
That's strange because I've been using gcc 2.95.2 under linux since it was
released and I haven't run across that particular bug. *shrug*
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•25 years ago
|
||
And you did compile with the DEBUG define ? as this part of code is also inside
a #ifdef DEBUG. I have to admit that I didn't "create" that patch but still it
surprise me as the person who did, Fred Fish, should know is stuff anyway I
don't care until it compile over here...
Yes, the default build is DEBUG. And the patch appears to be wrong. It makes
it so that nsString.h is only defined if you're compiling under beos with gcc
2.95+ when what you really want to do is comment out that bit of broken code for
beos only. It doesn't even get to the compiler error on my beos 5.0 box. Try
this one instead.
Index: xpcom/components/xcDll.cpp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/mozilla/xpcom/components/xcDll.cpp,v
retrieving revision 1.39
diff -u -r1.39 xcDll.cpp
--- xcDll.cpp 2000/03/25 08:54:22 1.39
+++ xcDll.cpp 2000/04/10 17:32:38
@@ -449,6 +449,7 @@
void nsDll::BreakAfterLoad(const char *nsprPath)
{
+#ifndef XP_BEOS
#ifdef DEBUG
static PRBool firstTime = PR_TRUE;
static nsCString breakList[16];
@@ -496,5 +497,6 @@
#endif
}
#endif /* DEBUG */
+#endif /* !XP_BEOS */
return;
}
The attached patch includes the one I pasted below and enables me to get a full
BeOS compile on my BeOS 5.0 box. Still shooting to get this change in before we
release M15.
Comment 10•25 years ago
|
||
The tree has branched for M15 and the 2nd attachment has been check into the
tree on the tip. I'll see about getting it in the M15 tarball as well.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•25 years ago
|
||
cls@seawood.org : Thanks for fixing this.
Comment 12•25 years ago
|
||
the M15 branch is ready for porting fixes.
Comment 14•25 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•25 years ago
|
||
the patch i just attached fixes a bug introduced by the second attachment
("BeOS fixes for the entire tree") - nsGfxFactoryBeOS::CreateInstance() was
creating an nsDeviceContextBeOS object where it should have been creating an
nsRenderingContextBeOS object
Reporter | ||
Comment 16•25 years ago
|
||
Justin, are you sure this last patch apply to this BUG ?
Comment 17•25 years ago
|
||
i figured that the last patch applies to this bug because:
* it fixes a problem introduced by the second patch
* the bug isn't marked CLOSED yet, (and yannick, not the QA person, changed its
status to VERIFIED :) so it's still fair game
if you agree, yannick, you could reopen the bug. if not, let me know, and i'll
make a new bugzilla entry for the patch...
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•