Of course, this ignores the detail that while the C compilers are
generating correct code, they may also be generating warnings about
alleged type errors - which can be a bit disconcerting.
It is an error, not just a warning, if the prototypes don't match.
GCC will complain loudly if
Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
foreign import foo :: Float - Char
extern HsChar ffi_generated_foo(HsChar arg1);
Errm, shouldn't that be:
extern HsChar ffi_generated_foo(HsFloat arg1);
^^^
?? Or is there some other
At 2002-07-04 03:55, Alastair Reid wrote:
I still think we're better off removing header files completely and
having the Haskell type completely determine the calling convention
employed.
I agree. The Haskell compiler doesn't necessarily need to spit out its
own prototypes for the benefit of
Errm, shouldn't that be: [...]
Or is there some other trick involved here?
Sorry, yes it should - just me getting confused in translating between
Haskell's
f :: A - B
and C's
B f(A);
A
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I just reread that section and can't see anything that contradicts the
idea that the FFI implementation ignores any header files provided.
For example, the phrase:
implements calls to C functions ... as if a function prototype for
the called functions is in scope
can be interpreted
