Archived
This forum has been archived. Please start a new discussion on GitHub.
Strange behavior with // comments in slice files
in Help Center
Hello,
When I introduce the character " into a C++-style comment the slice2py, slice2java and slice2cs throws:
However, slice2cpp works ok. libSlice code is shared by all slice2* backends. So, I do not understand this behaviour. I'm using the Ice 3.4 version.
A slice example file:
When I introduce the character " into a C++-style comment the slice2py, slice2java and slice2cs throws:
/tmp/struct.ice:4: struct `myStruct' must have at least one member
However, slice2cpp works ok. libSlice code is shared by all slice2* backends. So, I do not understand this behaviour. I'm using the Ice 3.4 version.
A slice example file:
module Test { struct myStruct { string s0; // Comment "my coment" }; };
0
Comments
-
Hi,
I have no problems compiling your Slice file with slice2java and slice2py from Ice 3.4.1 on CentOS.
Are you using our patched version of mcpp? If not, I recommend downloading our third-party source code archive.
Regards,
Mark0 -
Hi!Are you using our patched version of mcpp? If not, I recommend downloading our third-party source code archive.
mamp is using Ice 3.4.1 from Debian and mcpp it is not patched in this distro. I have read the README file of ThirdParty-Sources-3.4.1.tar.gz and you say "We expect that these changes will be included in a future release of mcpp".
Have you contacted with mcpp author for including ZeroC patch? If not, I may ask him to include your patch in Debian (he is also the Debian package maintainer).
Cheers,
Cleto.0 -
The mcpp author is aware of the patch for this issue but there has not been any activity on the mcpp discussion board for quite some time, so a new release does not seem forthcoming.0
-
Hi!
I have just confirmed that the reason of this issue is the patch. I was talking to mcpp author and he is currently so busy (since 2 years ago) for updating mcpp library. He expects get more time at spring.
I want to post a bug at Debian Bug Track System and include your patch but I don't know its license. Under which license is the patch published? I need this information to decide if I can publish it.
Cheers,
Cleto.0 -
Hi Cleto,
We license this patch under the same license as MCPP, namely:/*- * Copyright (c) 2010 ZeroC, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * This software including the files in this directory is provided under * the following license. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF * SUCH DAMAGE. */
(the only difference is the copyright).
Cheers,
Bernard0 -
Thanks a lot Bernard!
I'm starting the Non-Maintainer Upload process in the case of mcpp author delays the upload of the patch too much.
Cheers,
Cleto.0