[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnash-commit] gnash ChangeLog testsuite/actionscript.all/Movi...
From: |
Sandro Santilli |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnash-commit] gnash ChangeLog testsuite/actionscript.all/Movi... |
Date: |
Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:57:25 +0200 |
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:48:45PM +0800, zou lunkai wrote:
> > +sr60.removeMovieClip();
>
> > +check_equals(sr60.getDepth(), -32829); ---->[1]
>
> > +sr59.removeMovieClip();
>
> > +xcheck_equals(sr59.getDepth(), -32828); ---->[2]
>
> If Gnash passes on [1], why should it fail on [2]?
Because for gnash sr60 and sr59 both point to the same instance.
They both have the same target, the one at lower depth is found
first.
> we are still using pointers for soft references, right? what's the
> result of sr59.getDepth() with Gnash(just interested, I cann't verify
> it myself at the moment)?
It's -32829.. same as sr60.
Gnash goes looking for a rebind when the sprite isUnloaded().
Now changing it to check for isDestroyed() instead, which should
fix this.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
We need a test for opcode guarding to check if Unloaded and Removed
makes a difference there. If the removed character has an onUnload event
handler, is the remaining of actions after it's removal from stage still
discarded ?
--strk;
[Gnash-commit] gnash ChangeLog testsuite/actionscript.all/Movi..., Sandro Santilli, 2007/10/25