In Interpreter>declareCVarsIn: we currently have:- declareC: 'void *primitiveFunctionPointer' . "xxxx FIX THIS STUPIDITY xxxx - ikp. What he means is use a better type than void *, apparently - tpr"
Anyone care to offer the better type than void* ? Speak now or stop whining later.
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Fractured Idiom:- QUE SERA SERF - Life is feudal
I think only Ian knows what "this stupidity" is. Also, I'm not fond of profanity in code in general and would consequently just remove the comment until an actual criticism / improvement is offered. This kind of comment is not helpful and should be expunged whenever one is found.
Cheers, - Andreas
tim Rowledge wrote:
In Interpreter>declareCVarsIn: we currently have:- declareC: 'void *primitiveFunctionPointer' . "xxxx FIX THIS STUPIDITY xxxx - ikp. What he means is use a better type than void *, apparently - tpr"
Anyone care to offer the better type than void* ? Speak now or stop whining later.
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Fractured Idiom:- QUE SERA SERF - Life is feudal
On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
I think only Ian knows what "this stupidity" is.
Casting a function pointer to a void * is not guaranteed to yield a pointer with the same address, nor does casting it back. The stupidity was the (imposed?) use void * where a pointer to function was required.
Also, I'm not fond of profanity in code in general and would consequently just remove the comment
The comment was a note from me to me. Go ahead and remove it; it's unlikely I'll ever get around to fixing it. Can't say anything about any other comments you don't like and choose to delete unilaterally.
Cheers, Ian
On 15-Apr-08, at 1:05 PM, Ian Piumarta wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
I think only Ian knows what "this stupidity" is.
Casting a function pointer to a void * is not guaranteed to yield a pointer with the same address, nor does casting it back. The stupidity was the (imposed?) use void * where a pointer to function was required.
So what ought to be there is...... ?
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce.
On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:09 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:
On 15-Apr-08, at 1:05 PM, Ian Piumarta wrote:
On Apr 15, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
I think only Ian knows what "this stupidity" is.
Casting a function pointer to a void * is not guaranteed to yield a pointer with the same address, nor does casting it back. The stupidity was the (imposed?) use void * where a pointer to function was required.
So what ought to be there is...... ?
returnType (*functionName)(arg1type, arg2type, ..., argNtype)
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce.
Ian Piumarta wrote:
The comment was a note from me to me. Go ahead and remove it; it's unlikely I'll ever get around to fixing it. Can't say anything about any other comments you don't like and choose to delete unilaterally.
Fortunately it's a rare occurrence to find such comments in the code.
Cheers, - Andreas
In Hydra, i added declaration of primitive function type:
typedef sqInt (*PrimitiveFn)(struct Interpreter *) __attribute__((cdecl));
So, later in code its using this type:
PrimitiveFn primitiveFunctionPointer; PrimitiveFn externalPrimitiveTable[4097]; sqInt callExternalPrimitive(struct Interpreter *intr, PrimitiveFn functionID);
and so on..
Note about cdecl attribute. It was placed explicitly to make sure that primitive functions always get called using cdecl calling convention. We need this to not make difference between calling 'legacy' primitives and primitives which expect additional argument (interpreter instance). A cdecl calling convention helping us to call functions which not expecting any arguments as function which expects one. In this case argument just ignored, and what is important, since with cdecl calling convention only a caller responsive from cleaning a stack after call, there is no stack corruption.
2008/4/16 Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de:
Ian Piumarta wrote:
The comment was a note from me to me. Go ahead and remove it; it's
unlikely I'll ever get around to fixing it. Can't say anything about any other comments you don't like and choose to delete unilaterally.
Fortunately it's a rare occurrence to find such comments in the code.
Cheers,
- Andreas
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andreas Raab -
Ian Piumarta -
Igor Stasenko -
tim Rowledge