Hello, again,
I found one inconsistency in uffi's documentation. Uffi's doc says that dereferencing types :char and :unsigned-char return characters where actually it returns integers (at least here). Cffi's uffi-compat follows the doc and that also breaks elephant. Sending a new patch that "fix" that and also has a change necessary to def-function accept directions.
Please let me know whether my patches will get into cffi or if there is something I should change in them.
Now off to find more errors...
Gustavo.
Em 6 de agosto de 2010 11:19, Gustavo gugamilare@gmail.com escreveu:
Hello,
Sorry, my definition of "tomorrow" and "day duration" is a little distorted :3
My previous patch was kind of messy, so I decided to restart everything from the concept. Instead of the argument directions to be handled by the macro expansion and (complicated) auxiliary functions, it is now handled (mainly) by translate-objects and expand-to-foreign-dyn.
Also, tests for varargs functions are a bit hackish because I don't know how to create a C function with variadic argument. I don't know if it will work on all systems. Anyway, the tests are there, just test them and see if they work ;)
Gustavo.
Em 14 de julho de 2010 23:01, Gustavo gugamilare@gmail.com escreveu:
Hello, again,
I've added support for :in, :out, :in-out and :copy direction arguments except for defcfun with &rest args. The patch is attached, it includes some tests. Anyone may feel free to add more tests if it is convenient.
For defcfun with &rest arguments, I still need to test so I didn't include it in my patch. I'll do that tomorrow.
Changing subject, I noted that, *without* my changes, there are 4 unexpected failures with cffi in my system (and 2 expected).
The tests FUNCALL.VARARGS.DOUBLE, DEFCFUN.VARARGS.FLOAT, DEFCFUN.VARARGS.DOUBLE fail because of localization issues. Here in Brazil, we write "3,14" instead of "3.14" and sprintf takes that into account. Not a big problem, though, just notifying.
The test DEFCFUN.BFF.2 fails, I suspect it is because of the precision of doubles. The function returns the first, the second is expected.
7758614624042983568 7758614658402721936
The expected failures are STRING.ENCODING.UTF-16.BASIC and STRING.ENCODINGS.ALL.BASIC.
SBCL 1.0.40, 32-bit Ubuntu.
Now, except for those tests that were already failing, my changes didn't fail even a single one of them :)
Gustavo.