Re: ffcall on Darwin/PPC

[Yves de Champlain]

Le 07-03-18 à 05:57, David Ayers a écrit :

> Andrew Pinski schrieb:
> > On 3/17/07, Wolfgang Lux <wolfgang.lux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I do not see how this could ever be fixed, so I'm
> > > inclined to think that GNUstep should drop libffi.
> >
> >
> > You know I have not see any bug reports from you about libffi.  In
> > fact I rather have GNUStep always use libffi because it is more
> > supported with more targets (and the semi official base code is  
> > inside
> > GCC).  I am about to review the patch which used libffi instead of
> > __builtin_apply (etc.) inside libobjc also.
>
> I tend to agree with Andrew.  I have tried to contact ffcall  
> maintainers
> for issues in either SPARC or NetBSD architectures and haven't had
> productive responses.
>
> IIRC, building the development environment for ffcall entails
> non-portable configure scripts and specific gcc versions (2.7.?).
>
> The problem is that both libffi and ffcall solve non-trivial problems
> and /I/ haven't been able to easily find the documentation needed to
> use/fix them...  which makes formulating useful bug reports also
> non-trivial.
>
> But realize that libffi is what gcc's java implementation uses so for
> the common platforms I believe the issues don't necessarily lay within
> libffi.

BTW, it seems the only way to build libffi with gcc is to build java  
(just objc won't do).

I can't really follow the discussion, but my need to oversimplify  
things leads me to the following conclusions :

1- ffcall works better than ffi today
2- ffi has a brighter tomorrow
3- libobjc would be better by its own (after tomorrow)

not too far off ?

thanks

yves