Re: GByteArray element type information from typelib files

[Keri Harris <keri gentoo org>]

Il 23/02/2015 10:08, Philip Withnall ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 19:33 +0100, Keri Harris wrote:
> > I'm writing a language binding using gobject-introspection and have
> > noticed some unexpected behaviour when extracting GByteArray element
> > type information from typelib files. When multiple functions with
> > GByteArray arguments share similar argument names it appears that the
> > first such function appearing in the GIR file determines the element
> > type for all other such functions.
> >
> > As an example, consider the following:
> *snip the helpful example*
> > This behaviour seems restricted to GByteArray types; other array types
> > return the correct element type.
> Indeed, it doesn’t affect GArray.
>
> > It seems odd to me to specify anything other than a guint8 element type
> > for GByteArray args, but this unexpected behaviour was picked up when
> > extending some of the GByteArray test cases in the gimarshallingtest.c
> > file. At the moment the GByteArray functions in the
> > GIMarshallingTests-1.0.typelib file all use guint8 element types by
> > virtue of the gi_marshalling_tests_bytearray_full_return() appearing
> > first in the GIR file. Adding a gi_marshalling_tests_bytearray_full_in()
> > test case based on gi_marshalling_tests_bytearray_none_in() is enough to
> > cause all GByteArray functions in the marshalling test typelib all use
> > gint8 element types.
> Examining the generated typelibs, it looks like the type blob for the
> two parameters is aliased. Changing the name of one of the functions’
> parameters results in the typelib growing and the types being recorded
> correctly. The GIR file looks fine, so it’s something in the GIR reader
> or typelib writer.
>
> Would you mind filing a bug against gobject-introspection please so
> someone can investigate further?
>
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=gobject-introspection

I've lodged bug #745001 [1].


Thanks

Keri

[1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=745001