364731 - Windows x64 porting of bug 349002 - Refactor xptcall into a frozen API

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

Description

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; SV1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Build Identifier: 

Due to a fix of bug 349002, some API is changed.  But since Windows x64 code isn't updated, it will be build break.

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

Created attachment 249449 [details] [diff] [review]
a patch for Windows x64

Comment 2

[Benjamin Smedberg]

Comment on attachment 249449 [details] [diff] [review]
a patch for Windows x64

>Index: win32/xptcinvoke_x86_64.cpp

>-extern "C"
>-XPTC_PUBLIC_API(nsresult)
>-XPTC_InvokeByIndex(nsISupports* that, PRUint32 methodIndex,
>+extern "C" NS_EXPORT
>+nsresult NS_FROZENCALL

Is there any particular reason you're not using XPCOM_API like the header does? http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/xpcom/reflect/xptcall/public/xptcall.h#187

The rest of this looks fine.

--BDS

Comment 3

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

(In reply to comment #2)
> (From update of attachment 249449 [details] [diff] [review] [edit])
> >Index: win32/xptcinvoke_x86_64.cpp
> >-extern "C"
> >-XPTC_PUBLIC_API(nsresult)
> >-XPTC_InvokeByIndex(nsISupports* that, PRUint32 methodIndex,
> >+extern "C" NS_EXPORT
> >+nsresult NS_FROZENCALL
> Is there any particular reason you're not using XPCOM_API like the header does?
> http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/xpcom/reflect/xptcall/public/xptcall.h#187
> The rest of this looks fine.
> --BDS

It is same style of win32 code (xptcinvole.cpp).  If I have to use XPCOM_API like the header, I fix a patch.

If I have to use it, why doesn't win32 code use XPCOM_API like header?

Comment 4

[Benjamin Smedberg]

> It is same style of win32 code (xptcinvole.cpp).  If I have to use XPCOM_API
> like the header, I fix a patch.

Yes, please submit a new patch.

> If I have to use it, why doesn't win32 code use XPCOM_API like header?

Because it requires the __declspec(naked) attribute.

Comment 5

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

(In reply to comment #4)
> > It is same style of win32 code (xptcinvole.cpp).  If I have to use XPCOM_API
> > like the header, I fix a patch.
> 
> Yes, please submit a new patch.
> 
> > If I have to use it, why doesn't win32 code use XPCOM_API like header?
> 
> Because it requires the __declspec(naked) attribute.
> 

OK.  I will submit new patch

Comment 6

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

Created attachment 249490 [details] [diff] [review]
a patch for Windows x64

Comment 7

[Doug Turner (:dougt)]

Comment on attachment 249490 [details] [diff] [review]
a patch for Windows x64

looks fine.

Comment 8

[Makoto Kato [:m_kato]]

checked in