Duplicate methods in an interface (especially across protocols and
between protocols and the interface) are both harmless and even to be
expected. They certainly should not cause the compiler to demand
duplicate method implementations :)
If the last command in the buffer had no parameters, its length would be
only 2 and thus processing would stop before reading the command from
the buffer.
This is one step closer to implementing conformsToProtocol. However,
protocols are not yet initialized correctly: they are not registered,
nor are their selectors.
While the static initializer list pointer was not written previously,
the module struct always came immediately after the symbols struct, and
the module version has so far always been 0. Thus, the list pointer is
correctly 0 for older progs and there's no need for a version bump.
This is actually a double issue: when a class implementing a protocol
used the protocol in @protocol(), not only would the protocol get
emitted as part of the class data specifying that the class conforms to
the protocol, a second instance would be emitted again when @protocol()
was used. On top of that, only the instance referenced by @protocol()
would be initialized. Now, both class emission and @protocol() get their
protocol def from the same place and thus only one, properly
initialized, protocol instance is emitted.
The problem was an erroneous assumption that the methods had to be
defined. Any class implementing a protocol must implement (and thus
define) the methods, but a protocol declaration cannot: it merely
declares the methods, and it's entirely possible for a module to see
only the protocol definition and not any classes implementing the
protocol.
Unlike gcc, qfcc requires foo to be defined, not just declared (I
suspect this is a bug in gcc, or even the ObjC spec), because allowing
forward declarations causes an empty (no methods) protocol to be
emitted, and then when the protocol is actually defined, one with
methods, resulting in two different versions of the same protocol, which
comments in the gnu objc runtime specifically state is a problem but is
not checked because it "never happens in practice" (found while
investigating gcc's behavior with @protocol and just what some of the
comments about static instance lists meant).
It proved to be too fragile in its current implementation. It broke
pointers to incomplete structs and switch enum checking, and getting it
to work for other things was overly invasive. I still want the encoding,
but need to come up with something more robust.a
This fixes the dependency issues between qwaq and ruamoko. qwaq is
actually older than ruamoko. That little language feature test has come
a long way.
However, I'm considering moving to non-recursive make, but...
It doesn't look good, but it does have panel based windows working, and
using objects. Won't build reliably right now due to qwaq being in tools
and thus building before ruamoko, but I'll fix that next.
It seems that xterm automatically disables it when ncurses shuts down and
mate-terminal does not, or maybe a different version of something. Still,
good to clean up properly.
Now they reflect the curses functions they wrap. The externally visible
builtin names are not changed because the parameters are in x, y order
rather than curses' y, x order.
If the window is invalid and recovery is done, string ids will leak if
acquired before validation.
Afterwards, make the rest of the builtin wrappers consistent: extract
parameters, validate, [acquire resources], generate command.
Now that the initial prototype seems to be working well, it's time to
implement more commands. I might have to do some wrappers for actual
command writing (and result reading) as it looks like there will be a
lot of nearly identical code.
So far, no threading has been set up, and only window creation and
printing have been updated, but the basics of the design seem to be
sound.
The builtin functions now no longer call ncurses directly: the build
commands and write them to a command buffer.
Commands that have return values (eg, window creation) write their
results to a results buffer that the originating builtin function
reads. Builtin functions that expect a result "poll" the results buffer
for the correct result (marked by the same command). In a single
UI-thread environment, the results should always be in the same order as
the commands, and in a multi-UI-thread environment, things should
(fingers crossed) sort themselves out as ONE of the threads will be the
originator of the next available result.
Strings in commands (eg, for printing) are handled by acquiring a string
id (index into an array of dstring_t) and including the string id in the
written command. The string id is released upon completion of the
command.
Builtin functions write commands, acquire string ids, and read results.
The command processor reads commands, releases string ids, and writes
results.
Since commands, string ids, and results are all in ring buffers, and
assuming there is only one thread running the builtin functions and only
one thread processing commands (there can be only one because ncurses is
not thread-safe), then there should never be any contention on the
buffers. Of course, if there are multiple threads running the builtin
functions, then locking will be required on the builtin function side.
I expect I will need several messaging buffers, and ring buffers tend to
be quite robust. Replacing the event buffer code with the macros made
testing easy.
id and z seem to always be 0.
Ironically, it turns out that the work needed for "int id" and "large"
struct nil init wasn't strictly necessary to get to this point, but
without having done that work, I wouldn't know :)
