gnustep-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OpenBSD: Services problems


From: Fred Kiefer
Subject: Re: OpenBSD: Services problems
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:02:14 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; de; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110907 SUSE/3.1.14 Thunderbird/3.1.14

On 12.09.2011 17:59, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:

On 12 Sep 2011, at 16:44, Fred Kiefer wrote:

On 12.09.2011 15:44, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
Hi,

I can reproduce the said problem with MinGW too, perhaps you can
try at your place too? I avoid testing GWorkspace under windows,
so I used TextEdit ->  Vespucci and opened an URL
The basic problem reported here is that a method signature
doesn't have type information attached to it. This gets
detected in line 2601 of the file NSConnection.m. There we also
have some addition error reporting in place. Could you please
run your service applications with --GNU-Debug=dflt. It would
also be interesting to get even more information from this
method. What object are we trying to access (I think it should
be the GSServiceManager) and is the service method found on the
object?
Bu running the application with your option (inside GDB so i get
an output on windows) I get:

warning: 2011-09-12 15:41:56.385 Vespucci[5344] currentMode =
NSDefaultRunLoopMode

warning: 2011-09-12 15:42:08.229 Vespucci[5344] Local
object<0x1b9feb0 GSListener>  doesn't implement:
openURL:userData:error: directly. Will search for arbitrary
signature.

warning: 2011-09-12 15:42:08.229 Vespucci[5344]
NSConnection.m:2601 Assertion failed in -[NSConnection(Private)
_service:forwardForProxy:]. Invalid parameter not satisfying:
type

That's just the result I expected. Object is a GSListener, a
subclass of NSProxy, and our current code isn't able to extract the
method signature from that kind. I still think the solution I
suggested in the last mail, using -methodSignatureForSelector: is
the correct one, but I would like to get comments, at least, from
Richard and David on that.

Yes, I've been looking at it, and I think your solution is the
best/correct one ...  I'll commit the version I've been trying.

Thank you for looking into this. I feel rather uncomfortable with
changing code that I only half understand.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]