Modified proposal for default decls

Fergus Henderson fjh at
Mon Feb 26 14:05:45 EST 2001

On 26-Feb-2001, Alastair Reid <reid at> wrote:
> > Many C interfaces contain a significant number of macros.  And C is
> > one of the most widely used languages that we want to interface with.
> > So it seems to me that any FFI which aims to provide *good* support for
> > C ought to provide a way of accessing C macros.
> Since an explicit goal of the original ffi design was that it would not require
> a C compiler to implement it and since at least one implementation (STG-Hugs)
> doesn't require a C compiler, I'd like to see a lot of discussion before we add
> support for macros to the ffi.

Given the current state of affairs, I think it would be reasonable to
only require implementations to support interfacing with C functions,
and to not require implementations to support interfacing directly
with C macros, variables, enumeration constants, etc.
After all, you can only standardize on the lowest common denominator.

But I think it would be very nice to standardize on a syntax for doing
that, even if supporting that syntax is optional rather than a requirement.
I think that in the long run most implementations will want to support it.

I also think that it would be nice to standardize on the syntax used
to tell the compiler which include files are needed.

Fergus Henderson <fjh at>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
                                    |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.

More information about the FFI mailing list