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...
Nope. The two issues were portability and the prospect of a library which isn't ours that we'd need to maintain if we were distributing it.
I'm fine with someone taking a stab at teaching Configure to probe for it on platforms that don't have the JIT building up function headers already, and teaching nci.c to use it in that case. (As long as the order of preference is "JIT building functions", "libffi", "current hackish NCI scheme" is maintained)
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
