Hi,
Why is revision 6749 merged in revsion 6771?
It is the likely cause of bug 8492, so I would have waited with the merge, until that bug has been fixed.
Vincent

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2007-03
7 messages · 3 people · –
Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription
Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.
Hi,
Why is revision 6749 merged in revsion 6771?
It is the likely cause of bug 8492, so I would have waited with the merge, until that bug has been fixed.
Vincent
Since this bug has not been fixed yet, I propose to undo the merge to the fixes branch for now. After all, it would be nice if people could use xmlcfg in fpc 2.1.4. And Joost has said he will allow only build related fixes in 2.1.3, so we must undo the merge before tagging 2.1.2.
Vincent
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 12:19:08 PM, Vincent wrote:
VS> Since this bug has not been fixed yet, I propose to undo the merge to VS> the fixes branch for now. After all, it would be nice if people could VS> use xmlcfg in fpc 2.1.4. And Joost has said he will allow only build VS> related fixes in 2.1.3, so we must undo the merge before tagging 2.1.2.
Are you sure that the bug 8492 is caused by the merge? There are hardly any changes in dom.pp that could cause it (Attribute.Normalize was changed to Attribute.DataType, but both do not affect xmlcfg functionality). Moreover, I cannot reproduce this bug in Windows. I'll try testing with Linux now and report the results.
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 2:56:10 PM, Sergei wrote:
SG> Are you sure that the bug 8492 is caused by the merge? There are SG> hardly any changes in dom.pp that could cause it (Attribute.Normalize SG> was changed to Attribute.DataType, but both do not affect xmlcfg SG> functionality). Moreover, I cannot reproduce this bug in Windows. SG> I'll try testing with Linux now and report the results.
Ok, a single '@' was missing. I had fixed the bug and attached the patch to bug tracker entry. Sorry for the late reaction; it may be better to notify me directly of such issues.
No problem, applied and working now :D The response is what matters.
Ales
SG> Are you sure that the bug 8492 is caused by the merge? There are SG> hardly any…
Sending as attachment. The program just reads 'Options/Video/ResX' and writes to console, then tries to change it in the file.
Neither GetValue nor SetValue work. GetValue always gets defaults, SetValue does nothing.
Ales
Friday, March 16, 2007, 2:16:17 AM, Ales wrote:
AK> Sending as attachment. The program just reads 'Options/Video/ResX' and AK> writes to console, then tries to change it in the file.
AK> Neither GetValue nor SetValue work. GetValue always gets defaults, AK> SetValue does nothing.
AK> Ales
Looks like I got a lot of bugs in an attempt to make the DOM work faster... What's notable is that I was testing it all the way, but it appears that I was testing the wrong unit.
Attached is a patch that fixes GetValue. SetValue issue is not clear; test program contains no calls to SetValue but instead a second GetValue. Changing it to SetValue makes the things work as expected.