[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk) wrote,
> I use C2HS libraries now (but the c2hs program needs so *MUCH*
> memory and time to parse Perl headers that I can't use it here;
> fortunately there is no need to marsh C structures).
The last version of C->HS on the Web page has a *big* sp
Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > Passing foreign objects directly via the FFI does not have this
> > problem, because there is a special lifetime guarantee for this
> > kind of values. :-P
>
> Actually, doesn't that prove the point that I tried to make
> whe
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> > The function is described as unsafe because the result loses the
> > finalizer, right? [...]
>
> Not exactly. The real problem (pointed out to me by Manuel Chakravarty
> some time ago) is exemplified by the following co
George Russell writes:
> Tom Pledger wrote:
> > For two threads to have access to the same MVar, they must have a
> > common ancestor, right? Could a common ancestor spawn a transaction
> > broker thread? That would be similar to what database management
> > systems do. It'd still be centr
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:04:52 +0100, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pisze:
> Not exactly. The real problem (pointed out to me by Manuel Chakravarty
> some time ago) is exemplified by the following code snippet:
[...]
I had exactly that thing in mind.
Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:21:12 +0100, Sven Panne <[E
George Russell wrote:
> with comparison done in (at most) a logarithmic
> number of steps.
Damn. I really should have thought this through before making such
an assertion. You can contrive a sequence of calls that will force comparison
to take a linear number of steps. And I don't know how you
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> The function is described as unsafe because the result loses the
> finalizer, right? [...]
Not exactly. The real problem (pointed out to me by Manuel Chakravarty
some time ago) is exemplified by the following code snippet:
addr <- foreignObjToAddr fo -- las
George Russell wrote:
>
> George Russell wrote:
> > Exactly the same happens at the same time to Processor 2.
> > Now somehow you have to distinguish between Processor 1 and Processor 2,
> > because only one is going to get to lower the flags. But I don't think
> > with the existing Concurrency
> On 16-Feb-2000, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The easiest way is to declare mmap as a foreign function
> using foreign
> > import, then build a little wrapper around it.
> Unfortunately you won't be
> > able to turn the resulting memory into an array (even a
> ByteArray),
> The function is described as unsafe because the result loses the
> finalizer, right?
>
> So it is in fact unsafe to store a list of such Addrs in malloced
> memory, passing the pointer to the array to a C function, because
> they can be garbage collected and finalized during storing them,
> bef
The function is described as unsafe because the result loses the
finalizer, right?
So it is in fact unsafe to store a list of such Addrs in malloced
memory, passing the pointer to the array to a C function, because
they can be garbage collected and finalized during storing them,
before the C func
11 matches
Mail list logo
