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

[Adam Fedor]

That's probably because NSObject indirectly includes Object. That's 
been fixed in CVS now, so it will be in the next release.

Besides, you'd want to complain to the gcc bug list about Object.h

On Jun 22, 2005, at 6:05 PM, Larry Campbell wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep