On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Luís Oliveira <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll > <juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > ... provided in this patch. > > I have a few questions about this patch. > > (defun pointer-eq (ptr1 ptr2) > "Return true if PTR1 and PTR2 point to the same address." > - (= (ffi:pointer-address ptr1) (ffi:pointer-address ptr2))) > + ;; In ECL two pointers are EQUAL if they point to the same address. > + (equal ptr1 ptr2)) > > One advantage of the previous definition is that passing non-pointers > to POINTER-EQ would (I assume) signal an error. What do you think? > If this is the intended behavior in all platforms then I will have to think about something else for the inline expansion as well -- is it ok if the error check is removed for low safety settings? > +(define-compiler-macro null-pointer () > + '(si::allocate-foreign-data :void 0)) > > Any reason why a simpler (declaim (inline null-pointer)) wouldn't work > just as well? > Such a proclamation would not get propagate anywhere -- ECL does not keep the definion of inline functions Juanjo -- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://tream.dreamhosters.com
_______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
