[#4076] Ruby/DL — Jamis Buck <jamis_buck@...>

I recently used Ruby/DL to create bindings to the SQLite3 embedded

40 messages 2005/01/03
[#4096] Re: Ruby/DL — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/04

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 02:53:49AM +0900, Jamis Buck wrote:

[#4099] Re: Ruby/DL — ts <decoux@...> 2005/01/04

>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:

[#4119] Re: Ruby/DL — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/05

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 03:05:48AM +0900, ts wrote:

[#4120] Re: Ruby/DL — ts <decoux@...> 2005/01/05

>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:

[#4125] Re: Ruby/DL — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/05

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:10:34AM +0900, ts wrote:

[#4116] Test::Unit::Collector::Dir won't work with code that modifies $LOAD_PATH — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>

Any test code that depends upon modifications of $: fails when used

10 messages 2005/01/05

[#4146] The face of Unicode support in the future — Charles O Nutter <headius@...>

Hello Rubyists!

47 messages 2005/01/06
[#4152] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/07

Hi,

[#4167] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...> 2005/01/09

Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:

[#4175] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/10

Hi,

[#4186] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2005/01/11

On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:53:48PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#4192] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/12

Hi,

[#4269] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...>

19 messages 2005/01/18
[#4270] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2005/01/18

Hi,

[#4275] Re: The face of Unicode support in the future — Wes Nakamura <wknaka@...> 2005/01/19

[#4323] test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>

test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception in a test method, as follows.

14 messages 2005/01/27
[#8773] Re: test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2006/09/02

In article <87is5jb46q.fsf@serein.a02.aist.go.jp>,

[#8776] Re: test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott@...> 2006/09/03

On 9/1/06, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:

[#8777] Re: test/unit doesn't rescue a Exception — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/09/03

On Sep 2, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:

Re: Ruby/DL

From: ts <decoux@...>
Date: 2005-01-05 16:10:34 UTC
List: ruby-core #4120
>>>>> "P" == Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> writes:

P> The original problem Jamis pointed out is that the number of callbacks
P> is limited when dl is compiled (they are statically defined in
P> callback.func).  There is a compile-time limited number of return types
P> and a compile-time limited number of callbacks per return type.

 Look at callback.func and see the difference between
 rb_dl_callback_func_0_0() and rb_dl_callback_func_0_1() 

 One has

  obj = rb_hash_aref(DLFuncTable, rb_assoc_new(INT2NUM(0),INT2NUM(0)));

 The other

  obj = rb_hash_aref(DLFuncTable, rb_assoc_new(INT2NUM(0),INT2NUM(1)));

 and you have the limitation, based on the hash just to retrieve this
 information 

  proto = rb_ary_entry(obj, 0);
  proc  = rb_ary_entry(obj, 1);


P> If it were possible to dynamically generate C functions, there would be
P> no limitation, and the only way I know to get rid of the limitation is
P> to dynamically generate C functions.

 There is another way to do it. Just imagine that `proc' and `proto' are
 given as arguments to these functions, and you have solved the problem.



Guy Decoux




In This Thread