|
From: | Yves de Champlain |
Subject: | Re: ffcall on Darwin/PPC |
Date: | Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:40:20 -0400 |
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 moresupported with more targets (and the semi official base code is insideGCC). 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 maintainersfor 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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |