Closed Bug 364731 Opened 18 years ago Closed 18 years ago

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

Categories

(Core :: XPCOM, defect)

x86
Windows Server 2003
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: m_kato, Unassigned)

Details

Attachments

(1 file, 1 obsolete file)

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
Attached patch a patch for Windows x64 (obsolete) — Splinter Review
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
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Attachment #249449 - Flags: review?(timeless)
(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?
> 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.
(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
Attachment #249449 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #249449 - Flags: review?(timeless)
Attachment #249490 - Flags: review?(benjamin)
Attachment #249490 - Flags: review?(benjamin) → review+
Whiteboard: [checkin needed]
Attachment #249490 - Flags: superreview?(dougt)
Comment on attachment 249490 [details] [diff] [review] a patch for Windows x64 looks fine.
Attachment #249490 - Flags: superreview?(dougt) → superreview+
checked in
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Whiteboard: [checkin needed]
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: