Re: +initialize vs. +(void)initialize?

[Larry Campbell]

Looks like no one ever replied to this. I've finally gotten fed up  
with zillions of compiler warnings about this and would like to  
change it, at least in gnustep-objc (which I have to use because  
threads are broken in gcc's objc).

Is there any reason not to change gnustep-objc's Object.h to conform  
to Apple's?

- lc

On Feb 25, 2003, at 6:31 PM, Philip Mötteli wrote:

> Hi
>
>
> When I compile my project, I have the following warnings:
>
> OBPostLoader.m:379: warning: multiple declarations for method  
> `initialize'
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/3.2/include/objc/Object.h:43:  
> warning: using `+initialize'
> OBPostLoader.m:50: warning: also found `+(void)initialize'
> /usr/GNUstep/System/Headers/Foundation/NSObject.h:167: warning:  
> also found `+(void)initialize'
>
>
> In Apples Foundation, +initialize returns 'void'. In GCC's root  
> object <objc/Object.h> it is defined as returning an id.
>
> Do I import a wrong header file? Or do I have a wrong Objective-C?
>
>
> Re
> Phil
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep