Tim Bunce wrote: > > I see Dan says in his blog "Yeah, I know, we should use libffi, and > we may as a fallback, if we don't just give in and build up the > function headers everywhere." > > I'm not familiar with libffi so this may be a dumb question, > but why the apparent reluctance to use it?
The reluctance probably doesn't have anything to do with its very liberal licensing terms... The libffi was originally produced by Cygnus, but is now actively maintained as part of GCC. http://sources.redhat.com/libffi/ http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/libffi/LICENSE -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com garrett at scriptpro dot com
