My point is, that this code is valid wrt. the manual and apparently
valid given my understanding of what the C code tries to do:
make it possible to return on stack strings.
Can you point out the relevant manual section?
For me it ends up like this:
--- #define return(x)
Sorry JohnFelix,
I must have been overworked.
Some sleep already made me aware that the memory in question is indeed
clobbered. The c-pointer section in the FFI manual is just not clear
about that. (And somehow I must have convinced myself that C_mpointer
would already copy out the memory,
Hi,
ages ago I wrote these simple lines:
(define integer-utf8string
(foreign-lambda*
c-string ((unsigned-integer ch))
static C_uchar off[6]={0xFC,0xF8,0xF0,0xE0,0xC0,0x00};
int size=5; C_uchar buf[7];
buf[6]='\\0';
if (ch 0x80) {
buf[5]=ch;
} else {
buf[size--]=(ch0x3F)|0x80;
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
(define integer-utf8string
(foreign-lambda*
c-string ((unsigned-integer ch))
static C_uchar off[6]={0xFC,0xF8,0xF0,0xE0,0xC0,0x00};
int size=5; C_uchar buf[7];
buf[6]='\\0';
if (ch 0x80) {
buf[5]=ch;
} else {
buf[size--]=(ch0x3F)|0x80;
On Oct 13 2011, John Cowan wrote:
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
(define integer-utf8string
(foreign-lambda*
c-string ((unsigned-integer ch))
static C_uchar off[6]={0xFC,0xF8,0xF0,0xE0,0xC0,0x00};
int size=5; C_uchar buf[7];
buf[6]='\\0';
if (ch 0x80) {
buf[5]=ch;
} else {
On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
ages ago I wrote these simple lines:
Out of curiosity, would this suit your purposes instead:
(##sys#char-utf8-string (integer-char x))
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
On Oct 13 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Recently this code begin to return garbage under gcc 4.4.5
on amd64 and ARM, though more reliable on ARM.
I forgot some marginal thing you might want to know just in case:
With gcc 4.4.5 (as in current debian stable) you really, really
don't want to
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 07:24:12PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
IMHO the moral of the story: Never trust you C compiler too much.
I've had to get more familiar with gcc's -f flag, as the years have
gone by. '-fno-strict-aliasing' is one that I've personally needed
(and chicken requires
On Oct 13 2011, Jim Ursetto wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
ages ago I wrote these simple lines:
Out of curiosity, would this suit your purposes instead:
(##sys#char-utf8-string (integer-char x))
Looks good.
I did not notice that this made it into the
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
(Watch out for C_cblock and C_cblockend #defines in chicken.h , which
depend on the C compiler in use.)
Normally, they are ({ and }) respectively, the
GNU C extension for statement expressions (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-Exprs.html ). In C++
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:07:04PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
So I'll stick with the test case and remove the static keyword from
the buffer definition once I have an updated gcc in my production
environment.
Program testing can be used to show the presence
Alan Post scripsit:
It does make the routine non-reentrant. Does that matter here?
I don't see how. This routine is called from Chicken, and the string
gets copied into a Chicken string right away.
I suppose you might want to shut off interrupts.
--
John Cowanhttp://ccil.org/~cowan
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:46:30PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Alan Post scripsit:
It does make the routine non-reentrant. Does that matter here?
I don't see how. This routine is called from Chicken, and the string
gets copied into a Chicken string right away.
I suppose you might want
John,
it's not my intention to argue about the merits of the way the
foreign-lambda* I posted has been written.
(If I had to do so, I would argue that using a dynamic buf
would be better style. Less sensible to being [re]used in a
multi threaded or reentrant environment.)
My point is, that
On Oct 13 2011, John Cowan wrote:
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
So I'll stick with the test case and remove the static keyword from
the buffer definition once I have an updated gcc in my production
environment.
Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to
show
On Oct 13 2011, John Cowan wrote:
Alan Post scripsit:
It does make the routine non-reentrant. Does that matter here?
I don't see how. This routine is called from Chicken, and the string
gets copied into a Chicken string right away.
I suppose you might want to shut off interrupts.
On Oct 13 2011, Alan Post wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 02:46:30PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Alan Post scripsit:
It does make the routine non-reentrant. Does that matter here?
I don't see how. This routine is called from Chicken, and the string
gets copied into a Chicken string right
17 matches
Mail list logo
