On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, felix winkelmann wrote: > On 7/21/05, Daniel B. Faken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On a related note: is it OK to call C_alloc() to construct data to be > > passed via CHICKEN_invoke()? > > Yes, that should work. > > > The manual entry for C_alloc() says "..Note that stack-allocated data > > objects have to be passed to Scheme callback functions... This is really > > only usable for callback procedure invokations, make sure not to use it in > > normal code..." > > - but I'm not sure if the point is to not re-use C_alloc() memory or if > > this really means 'only proper callbacks' i.e. after entering scheme. > > What this means is that the storage used for the Scheme data may not be > popped from the stack if it hasn't been copied/gc'd into the major > heap yet. This may happen if you C_alloc in normal C procedures (which > subsequently return). CHICKEN_invoke runs in proper CPS mode, and > allocates merrily on the stack, so passing stack-allocated data to it should > be fine.
OK. >From what I see in chicken.h, we have: # define C_alloca alloca #define C_alloc(n) ((C_word *)C_alloca((n) * sizeof(C_word))) And as I undestand, alloca() is the same as allocating things on the stack directly, via C variable declarations. So does this mean instead of (for example): C_word *data = C_alloc(N*C_SIZEOF_FLONUM); C_word one = C_flonum(&data, 1.0); C_word two = C_flonum(&data, 2.0); C_word three = C_flonum(&data, 3.0); etc. I could do C_word realdata[N*C_SIZEOF_FLONUM]; C_word *data = realdata; C_word one = C_flonum(&data, 1.0); C_word two = C_flonum(&data, 2.0); etc. ?? That is to say: * is C_alloc() just a convenient way of avoiding getting the compiler to understand &realdata (above) as a pointer-to-a-pointer? (not sure if this is an ANSI-C issue - just know my compiler thought &realdata was a pointer-to-a-C_word). * are the issues of when to use C_alloc()-ated data identical to those for the storing of data in the C stack? - or is there more complexity hiding somewhere? Maybe this should be obvious.. but the documentation for C_pair(), C_list(), etc. saying "ptr should be the address of an allocation pointer created with C_alloc" made it seem like it was doing something special (beyond what just declaring the memory in a C local-variable would do). If not, maybe this could be clarified in the documentation. Again, thanks! cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users