Brandon Moore wrote:
Thinking to take advantage of fortuitous heap layout of some Haskell
values for interfacing with C, I've written the following function:
addressOf :: a -> Ptr ()
addressOf x = x `seq` unsafeCoerce# (Box x)
data Box x = Box x
For example,
data A = A {-# UNPACK #-} !(Ptr Word8) {-# UNPACK #-} !CInt
main = let a = A nullPtr 12
p = addressOf a `plusPtr` 4
in do x <- peek p :: IO Int
y <- peek p :: IO Int
print (x, y)
prints
(0, 12)
One thing I don't understand is that this fails if I use Just
rather than inventing my box type. I suppose the info table for
Just is set up to support a vectored return for pattern matching
on Maybe?
Yes, exactly right.
(the commentary isn't very clear here. The section
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/HaskellExecution#ReturnConvention
> says, in full:
> "Return Convention
> Direct Returns
> Vectored Returns"
> )
Sorry, I haven't got around to writing that section yet!
The reason I'm messing about with this stuff is that I'm pretty sure
passing p to C code would give a usable pointer to
struct a {char *; int;};
Obviously my plot will be spoiled if the GC comes along and relocates
the value while C code is trying to use it.
Yes.
Are there any other pitfalls with this approach?
The GC pitfall not enough for you? :) Well, future GHC versions might change
the representation under your feet, since we don't consider the heap object
representation to be stable, user-visible stuff.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
