On 22-Jan-2003, Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Finally, I am not sure whether we really want to allow that
> `reallocBytes' may be used on `alloca'ed memory, which the
> spec currently explicitly admits.
I agree, allowing this is a bad idea.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTE
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:23:27AM +1100, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> > Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> >
> > > I'd also like to see the addition of
> > >
> > > mallocForeignPtrArray :: Storable a => Int -> IO (ForeignPtr a)
> > >
> >
On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 10:23:27AM +1100, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
>
> > I'd also like to see the addition of
> >
> > mallocForeignPtrArray :: Storable a => Int -> IO (ForeignPtr a)
> >
> > to ForeignPtr, to save people from rolling their own.
Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> I'd also like to see the addition of
>
> mallocForeignPtrArray :: Storable a => Int -> IO (ForeignPtr a)
>
> to ForeignPtr, to save people from rolling their own. (Maybe the realloc
> and 0 versions too?)
The reason I didn't answer to this earli
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> [...] Moreover, Sven already added
>
> void hs_free_stable_ptr (HsStablePtr *sp);
> void hs_free_fun_ptr(HsFunPtr *fp);
>
> to the CVS version of the spec a while ago. I am not sure
> whether the "*" in the signatures was a mistake. [...]
This was s
I'd also like to see the addition of
mallocForeignPtrArray :: Storable a => Int -> IO (ForeignPtr a)
to ForeignPtr, to save people from rolling their own. (Maybe the realloc
and 0 versions too?)
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www
Sorry for taking so awfully long with a wrap up of the
finalizer affair, but here it is.
Unanimous agreement:
* Alastair was right: Haskell finalizers require pre-emptive
concurrency => C-finalizers only in FFI 1.0
Still under discussion:
* Names for the C-finalizer functions:
- A number o
