[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, master, updated. 782a82eed13abb643
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: [Guile-commits] GNU Guile branch, master, updated. 782a82eed13abb64393f7acad92758ae191ce509 |
Date: |
Sun, 07 Jun 2009 19:24:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
Heya,
On Sat 06 Jun 2009 16:31, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hello,
>
> "Andy Wingo" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> +SCM_DEFINE (scm_uniform_array_to_bytevector, "uniform-array->bytevector",
>> + 1, 0, 0, (SCM array),
>> + "Return a newly allocated bytevector whose contents\n"
>> + "will be copied from the uniform array @var{array}.")
>> +#define FUNC_NAME s_scm_uniform_array_to_bytevector
>> +{
>> + SCM contents, ret;
>> + size_t len;
>> + scm_t_array_handle h;
>> + const void *base;
>> + size_t sz;
>> +
>> + contents = scm_array_contents (array, SCM_BOOL_T);
>> + if (scm_is_false (contents))
>> + scm_wrong_type_arg_msg (FUNC_NAME, 0, array, "uniform contiguous
>> array");
>> +
>> + scm_array_get_handle (contents, &h);
>> +
>> + base = scm_array_handle_uniform_elements (&h);
>> + len = h.dims->inc * (h.dims->ubnd - h.dims->lbnd + 1);
>> + sz = scm_array_handle_uniform_element_size (&h);
>> +
>> + ret = make_bytevector (len * sz);
>> + memcpy (SCM_BYTEVECTOR_CONTENTS (ret), base, len * sz);
>
> Is this memcpy valid in the case of shared arrays? Looks like we end up
> copying more elements than needed, but maybe it's better this way.
I'm not entirely sure. I thought that scm_array_contents will give me a
contiguous array, though trolling around in srfi-4.[ch] and unif.[ch]
makes me grumpy ;)
>> + uniform-array->bytevector
>
> I would not export it from `(rnrs bytevector)' given that it has nothing
> to do with RnRS.
No, but it does have to with bytevectors... Where would you put it?
> Also, I would make the new C functions private, given that they are not
> intended for general use AIUI.
Dunno. I could imagine calling both of them from C. Would there be a
problem with leaving them to be public?
Cheers,
Andy
--
http://wingolog.org/