[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

> 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.

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 ?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]