wxruby users - Apr 2006 - Re: -fvirtual and compactdefaultargs (was StaticBoxSizer bug?)

Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
> In message <444C4D5B.6060801@mindspring.com>, Roy Sutton writes:
>   
>> The patch didn''t apply for me.  I have created a new patch for
the two
>> affected files.
>>     
>
> You probably needed a -p0 (assuming application from inside wxruby2/)
> or we had slightly different versions of the source files or maybe
> the .orig file suffix threw off your version of patch and it prefers
> the top-level directories to differ.  If the convention for wxruby2
> patch submissions is to generate them from a level above the source
> tree, I can do that in the future.  Is the mailing list the preferred
> patch submission medium?  I noticed that there''s a little-used
Patch
> category in the issue tracker.
>   
We''ve been using the mailing list.  We were working on getting a darcs 
repository going but I really don''t recall now whether that''s
up and
running (anyone?).
> How do people feel about adding -fvirtual to swig_options in
> rake/rakewx.rb to eliminate redundant wrapper generation?  I
> raise this question because prior to declaring RecalcSize() in the
> wxStaticBoxSizer.h, the wrapper generated for it in StaticBoxSizer.cpp
> was a redundant version of what was generated for BoxSizer.  Also, how
> about using %feature("compactdefaultargs") across the board
(putting it
> in common.i) to reduce the library size?  It shaved off 700KB
> of object code for me.  For example, Sizer::Add went from having
> 18 wrapper functions to just 6.
>   
Hmm.  I will test all my samples.  I actually think
"compactdefaultargs"
will fix at least one bug (the listbox bug) in the SWIG wrappers.  I 
will do a complete rebuild and try each of these options.

Roy

On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 17:12 -0400, Daniel F. Savarese
wrote:
> If the convention for wxruby2 patch submissions is to generate them 
> from a level above the source tree, I can do that in the future.  
It is. I am accustomed to using -p1 because some tool I used a while
back only accepted patches in that form.
> Is the mailing list the preferred patch submission medium?  
Yes, for now. As Roy mentioned, there is a darcs mirror, and I have
accepted some darcs patches in the past. I''m not that fond of darcs,
but
it is the most stable distributed RCS tool out there. I still hope to
switch wxruby to bzr at some point, but that is probably at least six
months away.
> How do people feel about adding -fvirtual to swig_options in
> rake/rakewx.rb to eliminate redundant wrapper generation?  
(snip)
> Also, how about using %feature("compactdefaultargs") across the
board
Sounds good to me. I rebuilt everything, and quick testing seemed to
show that nothing had become worse (or better). It cut the src directory
by about 2 megs, the obj directory by about 4 megs, and the resulting
wxruby2.so library by about 2 megs.

Thanks!

Kevin