Extension to the FFI to allow macro expansions to be avoided

Simon Marlow simonmar at microsoft.com
Fri Apr 16 10:25:32 EDT 2004

On 16 April 2004 11:33, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:

> Perhaps we should differentiate by a calling convention between
> linking to a function directly and generating a source-level C call?
> The calling conventions we know would correspond to linking to them
> directly. They would perform the necessary magic to turn off macros
> when compiling via C, and they would not need a C compiler when
> compiling via assembler. There is no need for specifying a C header
> in this case. 
> Another calling convention would generate a function wrapper with
> proper argument types. It would need "foreign type" declarations and
> included headers. The wrapped calling convention in this case is of
> course irrelevant, so it's a calling convention rather than a
> separate flag. 

I wondered about that (while writing my last post) but it still seems
like a hefty price to pay for the small number of problematic cases we
have, and given that you can already write the C stubs by hand to get
the desired effect.  Hmm, perhaps this falls in to the category of
something we expect an external tool to do?


More information about the FFI mailing list