[Ecls-list] FFI paradigms (was Re: ECL 10.2.1 RC)

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Andy Hefner <ahefner at gmail.com> wrote:

> If your goal is to compatibility with UFFI / CFFI /
> whatever then this is unavoidable, but otherwise I think it's an
> unfortunate approach that wastes time writing "bindings" you don't
> need, bloats the image with definitions you never use, and adds a
> layer of indirection that forces you to stop, think, and often grep
> the binding source code whenever you have to map from the original C
> documentation to an FFI version.


Yes and no. Current implementations of CFFI / UFFI create wrappers for every
function, as well as slot accessors for every conceivable structure that is
available. However

* Code groveling helps you in getting FFI up and running
* With a bit of magic, the resulting set of bindings would work as a kind of
"headers" used by a compiler to generate the appropriate function calls (or
C-INLINE forms in the case of ECL).

Once more, to make the second point a reality, work is needed.

Juanjo

-- 
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20100214/0f7283ce/attachment.html>