Re: undefine_c_func (was: memory profiling)
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 05:32:34 -0800, Chris Bensler
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>There is no need for these kinds of hacks,
Oh/Uh?
>variadic functions are fairly simple to interface with once you know how.
>I'm mostly going from memory and a lack of available informaton, but..
OK, I'm listening...
>
>All the params are stored as an array of INT's or DOUBLES, depending on the
>actual type of the argument. Types are promoted, so char/short -> INT and float
>-> DOUBLE
That is not at all what I was taught.[1]
>
>It is the function's responsibility to know what the types of the arguments are
>supposed to be and how many.
Nor that[2]
>
>Eg printf's first argument is a format string which inherently specifies the
>types of the variable arguments via the format flags.
Nor that[3]
>
<snip>
>
>Here is a code example to give you an idea
>(untested/pseudo code, I doubt it will actually work,
OK, gauntlet down. Make it work. I claim you will not be able to.
I'll accept a reasonable forfeit should you prove me wrong, of
course /only/ if you can do so with /less/ "hacks" than the wee
sequence of define_c_proc results I proposed, and keep say
60% of the code you posted?
Regards,
Pete
[1] Far as I know, in most languages (not Eu, of course), parameters
are pushed onto the stack, and the stack is kept machine-word aligned
by default. There's no "array" involved, though they do end up next to
each other by the time the function sees them.
[2] It is NOT a mandate that a (C) function must crash when passed
arguments of the wrong type. Any "responsibility" clearly lies with
the caller, not the callee.
[3] Clearly printf will print rubbish, and/or ignore excess arguments.
Inherently it has /no/ type checking abilities. Quite how one might
print 0 when you 0-terminate this fictional array is a mystery to me.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
