From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1524 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 22:59:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1514 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 22:59:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.gmx.net) (213.165.64.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 22:59:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 6882 invoked by uid 65534); 6 Oct 2003 22:59:51 -0000 Received: from chello213047125140.14.univie.teleweb.at (EHLO garibaldi) (213.47.125.140) by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 07 Oct 2003 00:59:51 +0200 X-Authenticated: #3102804 Received: from ivanova.rhinosaur.lan ([192.168.1.9] helo=ivanova) by garibaldi with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A6eMZ-0002tC-Lc; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:01:59 +0200 Received: from andy by ivanova with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1A6eMj-0002wu-00; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:02:09 +0200 To: Rob Browning Cc: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com, guile-gtk-general@gnu.org Subject: Re: guile-gobject/g-wrap status update References: <87y8vy7tey.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> <87zngez8fh.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> From: Andreas Rottmann Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 22:59:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87zngez8fh.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (Rob Browning's message of "Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:34:42 -0500") Message-ID: <87y8vyq8b2.fsf@alice.rotty.yi.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-q4/txt/msg00002.txt.bz2 Rob Browning writes: > Andreas Rottmann writes: > >> [BTW: There seem to be two guile-gtk mailing lists ATM - I guess >> people should migrate to the one at GNU...] >> >> I'm ATM working at implementing "glueless" wrapping for g-wrap, >> i.e. instead of using a dedicated C wrapper for each wrapped function >> creating an applicable smob that invokes a general marshaller which in >> turn calls the C function via libffi. > > Interesting. A couple of questions come to mind. First, how portable > is libffi? Will it cover all the existing architectures? > At auric.debian.org: rotty@auric:~% madison libffi2 libffi2 | 1:3.0.4-7 | stable | alpha, arm, i386, ia64, m68k, powerpc, s390, sparc libffi2 | 1:3.3.2-0pre4 | testing | alpha, arm, i386, ia64, m68k, powerpc, s390, sparc libffi2 | 1:3.3.2-0pre4 | unstable | arm, m68k, powerpc, s390, sparc libffi2 | 1:3.3.2-0pre5 | unstable | alpha, i386, ia64 So libffi seems pretty portable. > Also, do we know what the overhead's likely to be? I suppose the > performance argument could go either way when comparing to the > existing approach since the existing one-function-per-wrapper > approach may well have poorer interactions with the memory > hierarchy. In any case, I do want to preserve the ability for > people who want to, to be able to have close to minimal ffcall > overhead using g-wrap. > I plan to make "glueless" wrapping an optional feature that you can turn on and off at your delight (at wrapper creation time, that is, of course). > When calling from interpreted languages, you may have a lot more > leeway before you noticably affect performance, but in the long run, > I'm hoping guile will also provide some form of compilation. > Yes, I'd like to see that, too. > On a related front, I've decided to just use CVS at savannah, so I > should be setting that up over the next week (plus or minus -- I > have family coming to visit). > Cool. I think that you can integrate GNU arch somehow with CVS, so if we are going to do multi-branch development (which CVS is poor at), we could have just the mainline in CVS and use arch for the harrier stuff I think. I've not yet very much looked into arch, but perhaps someone else here has real experience. > It also probably makes sense to have a place where those interested > can discuss "what should happen next" with g-wrap. I'm happy to > have that discussion on an existing list if that would be > appropriate, or to create a new one. I've had some ideas I'd like > to discuss, and to compare and contrast (to the extent that they > overlap) with the above. > Maybe guile-gtk is appropriate (the GNU one, /methinks), but I'm not the one to decide this and I'll be happy either way. Regards, Andy -- Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at http://www.8ung.at/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://www.8ung.at/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62