On Oct 13, 2009, at 7:44 AM, Ben Haller wrote:
Yes, but NSInteger is 10.5 or later; I'm keeping 10.4 compatibility
for now. Anyhow, those uses were all in my own internal logic,
which can stay using 32-bit ints.
NSInteger is just a typedef defined in the 10.5+ SDKs. It doesn't
actually
On 12-Oct-09, at 8:14 PM, Charles Srstka wrote:
On Oct 11, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ben Haller wrote:
Most of the bugs I had to fix were related to either using "long"
instead of "int", or needing a -finalize method.
You should actually probably be using NSInteger instead of either of
those thes
On Oct 11, 2009, at 9:46 PM, Ben Haller wrote:
Most of the bugs I had to fix were related to either using "long"
instead of "int", or needing a -finalize method.
You should actually probably be using NSInteger instead of either of
those these days.
There's actually a ConvertCocoa64 script
On Oct 11, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Ben Haller wrote:
Besides that, I just needed to change a few retains and releases
around, because I was mixing CF calls and Cocoa calls in an
inconsistent way in a few places. And that was it; as far as I can
tell, it now runs nicely on all the target platform
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:02:22 -0400, Ben Haller > wrote:
> Hi folks. So my screensaver broke on 10.6, along with everybody
> else's, and I'm told that's because it has to be compiled for the 64-
> bit architecture, because System Prefs is a 64-bit app on 10.6. So I
> set up a conditional compil
On Oct 11, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Ben Haller wrote:
My only question: what's the best way to switch at compile time
based on whether GC is enabled for the build? I.e. what do I #if or
#ifdef? I could do it based on the arch or the SDK, but if there's
a flag specifically for GC I'd rather use
On Oct 11, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Michael Ash wrote:
Now, I *think* that 10.4 actually has stub versions of all these calls
which work correctly for the non-GC case which will always be found on
10.4, but it's manifestly not the case that there aren't any
GC-specific calls to make. Any code compiled
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Clark Cox wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ben Haller
> wrote:
>> On 11-Oct-09, at 3:52 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Ben Haller
>>> wrote:
>>>
OK, makes sense. My only question: what's the best way to switch at
c
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
> On 11-Oct-09, at 5:28 PM, Clark Cox wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Ben Haller
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I imagine I'm going to need to use *something* GC-specific --
>>> strong/weak declarations,
>>
>> Not likely.
>>
>>> finalize m
On 11-Oct-09, at 5:28 PM, Clark Cox wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
Well, I imagine I'm going to need to use *something* GC-specific --
strong/weak declarations,
Not likely.
finalize methods, whatever.
Implementing finalize methods are actually quite rare; and
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
> On 11-Oct-09, at 4:11 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Ben Haller
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, but my code also needs to compile as GC-unsupported against the 10.4
>>> SDK, where any GC-specific calls that I might need to make
On 11-Oct-09, at 4:11 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
On Oct 11, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
Yes, but my code also needs to compile as GC-unsupported against
the 10.4 SDK, where any GC-specific calls that I might need to make
will not compile. Am I missing something?
Do you really need
On Oct 11, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
Yes, but my code also needs to compile as GC-unsupported against
the 10.4 SDK, where any GC-specific calls that I might need to make
will not compile. Am I missing something?
Do you really need to compile against the 10.4 SDK? Why not comp
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
> On 11-Oct-09, at 3:52 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Ben Haller
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, makes sense. My only question: what's the best way to switch at
>>> compile time based on whether GC is enabled for the build? I.e
On 11-Oct-09, at 3:52 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote:
On Oct 11, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
OK, makes sense. My only question: what's the best way to switch
at compile time based on whether GC is enabled for the build? I.e.
what do I #if or #ifdef? I could do it based on the arch or
On Oct 11, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Ben Haller
wrote:
OK, makes sense. My only question: what's the best way to switch
at compile time based on whether GC is enabled for the build? I.e.
what do I #if or #ifdef? I could do it based on the arch or the
SDK, but if there's a flag specifically
On 11-Oct-09, at 3:28 PM, Clark Cox wrote:
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Dave Keck
wrote:
So I guess System Preferences doesn't like my garbage collection
setting
(which is set to "Unsupported"). Do I really need to turn GC on
to get my
screensaver to work?
Yes, your screensaver m
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Dave Keck wrote:
>> So I guess System Preferences doesn't like my garbage collection setting
>> (which is set to "Unsupported"). Do I really need to turn GC on to get my
>> screensaver to work?
>
> Yes, your screensaver must be GC-supported to support Snow Leopa
> So I guess System Preferences doesn't like my garbage collection setting
> (which is set to "Unsupported"). Do I really need to turn GC on to get my
> screensaver to work?
Yes, your screensaver must be GC-supported to support Snow Leopard.
This bit me recently too - I wasn't expecting it eithe
19 matches
Mail list logo
