[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FFI again
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: FFI again |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Oct 2013 12:39:50 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
> The author of the sxemacs libffi interface offered to provide it for
> emacs some time ago on this list, as I recall.
> If that doesnt pan out I dont think writing an emacs libffi interface
> from scratch is too hard.
I don't remember it being mentioned. I do vaguely remember someone
(Lars, maybe) mentioning that it can be a lot easier to write C code
that massages the lib calls to make them into subrs (as is done for
gnutls and libxml) than it is to write code for something like an FFI.
I personally don't have any experience either way. But I think that
a good benchmark for an FFI is to make our libxml and libgnutls
code use it.
> I really don't like this idea. You either force users to have the Emacs
> headers, Emacs import library, and a C compiler available to install a
> package or you provide pre-compiled binaries for popular platforms and
> create an ABI versioning nightmare.
The plan would be to require headers and a C compiler.
Precompiled libraries could be considered for the Windows platform, but
only if we can keep the versioning nightmare in check.
> The routines declared in lisp.h do not form stable interface.
Indeed, we'd need to define a slightly more stable API.
Stefan
- FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/05
- Re: FFI again, joakim, 2013/10/05
- Re: FFI again, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Andy Moreton, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/10/08