Browse thread
OCaml && COCOA-Environment (Mac-OS-X/GUI)
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2005-02-25 (02:03) |
From: | Paul Snively <psnively@m...> |
Subject: | Re: OCaml && COCOA-Environment (Mac-OS-X/GUI) |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jeff! On Feb 16, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Jeff Henrikson wrote: >> Mea culpa. I'm still very interested. I can't help but think that >> extending Jeff Henrikson's Forklift FFI to handle Objective-C and >> marrying that to an (improved? revised?) version of your bindings >> wouldn't be a big win > > A heads up with Forklift: > > I have been stuck lately in lexer hell. Frontc has a good AST, but > the parser is not designed to parse real-world nasty header files. > There are lots of pragmas such as __builtin_va_list which will crash > when parsing the linux stdio.h and etc. To my knowledge, the best > work with this has been done by the Cil team at UC Berkeley. > Unfortunately, the Cil team chose to fork the frontc sources and not > contribute a backport that I can tell. The dependencies are very > intertwined. > Is this still true for Frontc 3.1? It claims to handle GCC extensions, but I'm sure that keeping up to date with them is some work. > Forklift has a frontend now (more on that below) which is based on > Cabs (the frontc AST). I do not want to use the cil oop design > because it will make me deal with semantics, and I want to keep frontc > a strictly syntactic device with some simple generation-time type > equality checking. Cil also comes with some architecture specific > config tests for performance counters and such which would make for > configure script bloat. So after about three weekends of getting > burned out on a cycle of ripping out dependencies, not quite > finishing, and then forgetting where I was,I have a patch to extract > the modified frontc from cil. Unfortunately, in the meantime, Mr. > Casse has gone from 2.0 when cil forked to a version 3.1. A > superficial inspection did not make clear to me the nature of the > upgrades, except that diff was freaking out about reordered code. > > I have an email out with Mr. Casse regarding how he feels about > merging these changes. An Obj-C and/or C++ extension should > preferably begin with a "blessed" starting point. > I agree, and wonder whether there's consensus as to whether 3.1 should be that starting point, or whether we should (need to, for Forklift's sake?) integrate the Cil and 3.1 changes. > About the new frontend: it's based on a macro expansion which pattern > matches C types. The following returns a caml AST representing a > function which takes an argument list, looks for a pointer type along > with an int named "length", and returns a string printing the pointer > type and length variable. The idea being we think we have found a > high level array object. MPBT_PERM means to match in any order, but > there are patterns for consecutive and ordered matching too. > > (easy_pat_bt_expand (MPBT_PERM > [false,None,(BT_PTR (PBT_BIND "t")); > true,Some (PIDEN_LIT("length")),(BT_INT(PNO_SIZE,PNO_SIGN))]) > (<:expr< "array " ^ (string_of_type t) ^ " has length " ^ > (int_of_string len) >>));; > > Now all I need is a C-like camlp4 extension so that I can get the > above expression with something like > > MATCH_RULE function_proto with > PERM{t* _; int length} -> > "array " ^ (string_of_type t) ^ " has length " ^ > (int_of_string len) > > The camlp4 part is straightforward but still needs doing. This > pattern matching syntax will couple nicely with the .5 release, which > was really just a backend typestub composing algebra. The common case > of course being that the right hand side of a MATCH_RULE command > returns an n->k dimensioned typestub, meant for attatching to the > variables which were matched. > > I will be posting to the list when I have put it back together. I am > using an OS X powerbook as we speak and would love a contribution for > ObjC. > This sounds very nice! How would you suggest that we proceed toward Objective-C coverage in conjunction with your other requirements and observations about the status of Frontc and Cil? > Regards, > > > Jeff Henrikson > Best regards, Paul -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkIeh2EACgkQO3fYpochAqL9jgCfRGDgiI4JQKt3hVWEo7ZGAv3l BlIAoKe99JPLBJN/1y4cwOqy00xKQtPH =HKjL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----