Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
>
>> I am not sure if changing the method calling convension
>> has anything to do with OLE object.
>
> It has nothing to anything. It works just like standard methods
> though it's a less efficient due to one additional function stack
> frame which is created during execution of inline methods so
> the memory alignment is a little bit different and it can interact
> with some buggy code which access non initialized memory or use
> wrong pointers or even keep some indirect references to function
> methods in C structures.
>
This very well illustrates the problem.
Soo it means somewhere, may be at deep levels,
ACCESS/ASSIGN ... INLINE ...
has some differences with regular method calls.
I am just asking, which ChangeLog entry after 15 Mar
highlighted this difference. It is only for informative purposes.
Based on this alone, I am about to remove a lot of INLINE calls
from hbXBP.
> The fact that in the past some code was executed without GPF does
> not mean that it was ever correct.
>
True. But my code was not buggy at all.
It just worked as I explained and all of a sudden it stopped working
without even changing a line in the code. I am simply trying to
figure out 'what caused it'.
I already told, I have removed all calls to inline access/assign and
everything is working fine without changing anything in other C code.
> In this particular case GTWVG ActiveX code is still not production
> ready. As I can some things have been fixed by coping some parts of
> contrib/hbwin/axcore.c to contrib/gtwvg/wvgsink.c but still some
> other are not resolved, i.e. WVG_AXSETUPCONNECTIONPOINT() allocates
> memory for OLE objects and this memory is never released and the
> code which should do that is commented, probably due to GPFs.
> I do not see any code which increase reference counter before
> returning the pointer to PRG code so such GPF is expected behavior
> inside WVG_AXSHUTDOWNCONNECTIONPOINT(). And as far as I know this
> code existed here for very long time.
>
> Of course it's probably not the reason of your problems but it shows
> that this code is not such perfect as you suggested.
>
I will turn to this code soon.
Probably I will remove GTWVG implementation of activeX code and will
resort to HBWIN one.
> I've seen this message and I haven't found anything what suggested
> any problems in core code but maybe you see sth what I'm missing
> so please be so kind and tell me what I should check or better
> please create self contain as small as possible example which we
> can compile and test ourselves.
>
I do not know if you ever tried hbIDE and hbXBP+hbQT.
If you can, then I will send a ready to compile .hbp projects.
-----
enjoy hbIDEing...
Pritpal Bedi
http://hbide.vouch.info/
--
View this message in context:
http://harbour-devel.1590103.n2.nabble.com/CLASSES-Instance-Variable-as-Object-Access-Assign-Elsewhere-tp4941404p4951787.html
Sent from the harbour-devel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
