Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Hello! I have tagged version 1.2 of bind, which should be available shortly. Sorry it took so long. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Felix fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote: Hello! I have tagged version 1.2 of bind, which should be available shortly. Sorry it took so long. Thanks! Andrei ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
From: Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:17:58 -0400 On Mar 23, 2013 7:56 AM, Felix fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote: Having to do the static allocation manually all the time when all you want is an strdup is rather unpleasant. How about a patch that does both? Thanks, Andrei. I will look at this, perhaps the generated output can be simplifed a little. Thanks. Any chance you'll be able to look at this and the other patch to bind sometime soon? It's been a while and this is holding a bunch of code back. Hello! I've applied the 64-bit fix and partially added the patch regarding c-string/char-ptrs in mutable struct slots. I'm somehow reluctant to add the ...* accessor variant - I fear that this adds a lot of redundant bindings that are never used in most cases. By prefixing a slot type with ___pointer one always has the option to treat a char* as a pointer object instead of a c-string. If you can live with that, I can tag a new version of the bind egg. Otherwise we should discuss this some more. I don't recall the whole discussion so it is possible that I have overlooked something important. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Hey! I've applied the 64-bit fix and partially added the patch regarding c-string/char-ptrs in mutable struct slots. I'm somehow reluctant to Thanks! add the ...* accessor variant - I fear that this adds a lot of redundant bindings that are never used in most cases. By prefixing a slot type with ___pointer one always has the option to treat a char* as a pointer object instead of a c-string. If you can live with that, Okies. I can live without the c-pointer version. I can tag a new version of the bind egg. Otherwise we should discuss this some more. I don't recall the whole discussion so it is possible that I have overlooked something important. Sounds great. Andrei ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
From: Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:17:58 -0400 On Mar 23, 2013 7:56 AM, Felix fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote: Having to do the static allocation manually all the time when all you want is an strdup is rather unpleasant. How about a patch that does both? Thanks, Andrei. I will look at this, perhaps the generated output can be simplifed a little. Thanks. Any chance you'll be able to look at this and the other patch to bind sometime soon? It's been a while and this is holding a bunch of code back. In the next days, promised. I was on vacation, so excuse the long delay. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
On Mar 23, 2013 7:56 AM, Felix fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote: Having to do the static allocation manually all the time when all you want is an strdup is rather unpleasant. How about a patch that does both? Thanks, Andrei. I will look at this, perhaps the generated output can be simplifed a little. Thanks. Any chance you'll be able to look at this and the other patch to bind sometime soon? It's been a while and this is holding a bunch of code back. Andrei cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Having to do the static allocation manually all the time when all you want is an strdup is rather unpleasant. How about a patch that does both? Thanks, Andrei. I will look at this, perhaps the generated output can be simplifed a little. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Felix
fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote:
From: Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:04:16 -0500
Attached is a trivial patch that does the strdup.
I've been using the bind egg and encountered some strange behaviour.
I have:
struct a {
char *b;
};
Bind generates:
(begin
(define a-b
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s))
return(s-b);))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((c-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = b;\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
No, you're not missing anything. A strdup is perhaps not the perfect
solution, since you can never now what the user intended, and whether
this is a temporary data structure or a permanent one. The generated
code should probably take a c-pointer argument and leave it the user
to create a statically allocated string and convert it to a pointer.
Having to do the static allocation manually all the time when all you
want is an strdup is rather unpleasant.
How about a patch that does both?
This patch allows you to pass in either a string (will do an strdup)
or a pointer to make-structure-name.
structure-name-field-name performs the strdup as above when
setting the field and returns a string when getting it.
structure-name-field-name* takes a pointer and fetches a pointer.
This gives the user the option of either behaviour.
With mutable fields given:
struct a {
char *b;
};
bind currently generates:
(begin
(define a-b
(getter-with-setter
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s)) return(s-b);)
(foreign-lambda*
void
(((c-pointer (struct a)) s) (c-string x))
s-b = strdup(x);)))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((c-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = strdup(b);\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
This patch modifies it to generate:
(begin
(define a-b
(getter-with-setter
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s)) return(s-b);)
(foreign-lambda*
void
(((c-pointer (struct a)) s) (c-string x))
s-b = strdup(x);)))
(define a-b*
(getter-with-setter
(foreign-lambda*
c-pointer
(((c-pointer (struct a)) s))
return(s-b);)
(foreign-lambda*
void
(((c-pointer (struct a)) s) (c-pointer x))
s-b = x;)))
(define-foreign-type
bind-string
c-pointer
(lambda (a)
(if (string? a)
((foreign-lambda* c-pointer ((c-string a)) C_return(strdup(a));) a)
a))
(foreign-lambda* c-string ((c-pointer a)) C_return(a);))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((bind-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = b;\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
This introduces the foreign-type 'bind-string' to make
make-structure-name work. It's a bit of a wart that each structure
reintroduces this foreign type, but that doesn't matter as all
'bind-string' definitions are identical.
Andrei
bind-string.diff
Description: Binary data
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
From: Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 02:04:16 -0500
Attached is a trivial patch that does the strdup.
Andrei
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com wrote:
Hi,
I've been using the bind egg and encountered some strange behaviour.
I have:
struct a {
char *b;
};
Bind generates:
(begin
(define a-b
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s))
return(s-b);))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((c-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = b;\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
It seems to me that make-a is guaranteed to eventually lead to an out
of bounds memory access because of:
tmp_-b = b
b is a c-string and will be GCed as soon a the foreign-lambda* returns.
This is further exacerbated when using -mutable-fields making it
impossible to set any char* member.
Shouldn't the bind egg be doing an strdup here? Is there a way to get
it do so? Or am I missing something?
No, you're not missing anything. A strdup is perhaps not the perfect
solution, since you can never now what the user intended, and whether
this is a temporary data structure or a permanent one. The generated
code should probably take a c-pointer argument and leave it the user
to create a statically allocated string and convert it to a pointer.
cheers,
felix
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
From: Daniel Leslie d...@ironoxide.ca Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:25:22 -0800 Can someone with a little more core knowledge please comment on this? I'm also curious as to whether this test case will eventually result in an OOB error due to foreign reliance on GC-controlled memory. It does. I will look into this. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Thanks :) -Dan On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Felix fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote: From: Daniel Leslie d...@ironoxide.ca Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:25:22 -0800 Can someone with a little more core knowledge please comment on this? I'm also curious as to whether this test case will eventually result in an OOB error due to foreign reliance on GC-controlled memory. It does. I will look into this. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Can someone with a little more core knowledge please comment on this?
I'm also curious as to whether this test case will eventually result in an
OOB error due to foreign reliance on GC-controlled memory.
-Dan
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com wrote:
Attached is a trivial patch that does the strdup.
Andrei
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com wrote:
Hi,
I've been using the bind egg and encountered some strange behaviour.
I have:
struct a {
char *b;
};
Bind generates:
(begin
(define a-b
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s))
return(s-b);))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((c-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = b;\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
It seems to me that make-a is guaranteed to eventually lead to an out
of bounds memory access because of:
tmp_-b = b
b is a c-string and will be GCed as soon a the foreign-lambda* returns.
This is further exacerbated when using -mutable-fields making it
impossible to set any char* member.
Shouldn't the bind egg be doing an strdup here? Is there a way to get
it do so? Or am I missing something?
Thanks!
Andrei
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Attached is a trivial patch that does the strdup.
Andrei
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Andrei Barbu and...@0xab.com wrote:
Hi,
I've been using the bind egg and encountered some strange behaviour.
I have:
struct a {
char *b;
};
Bind generates:
(begin
(define a-b
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s)) return(s-b);))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((c-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = b;\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
It seems to me that make-a is guaranteed to eventually lead to an out
of bounds memory access because of:
tmp_-b = b
b is a c-string and will be GCed as soon a the foreign-lambda* returns.
This is further exacerbated when using -mutable-fields making it
impossible to set any char* member.
Shouldn't the bind egg be doing an strdup here? Is there a way to get
it do so? Or am I missing something?
Thanks!
Andrei
patch.diff
Description: Binary data
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] bind egg and strings
Hi,
I've been using the bind egg and encountered some strange behaviour.
I have:
struct a {
char *b;
};
Bind generates:
(begin
(define a-b
(foreign-lambda* c-string (((c-pointer (struct a)) s)) return(s-b);))
(define make-a
(foreign-lambda*
(c-pointer (struct a))
((c-string b))
struct a *tmp_ = (struct a *)C_malloc(sizeof(struct
a));\ntmp_-b = b;\n\nC_return(tmp_);)))
It seems to me that make-a is guaranteed to eventually lead to an out
of bounds memory access because of:
tmp_-b = b
b is a c-string and will be GCed as soon a the foreign-lambda* returns.
This is further exacerbated when using -mutable-fields making it
impossible to set any char* member.
Shouldn't the bind egg be doing an strdup here? Is there a way to get
it do so? Or am I missing something?
Thanks!
Andrei
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
