[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DotGNU]Re: [clisp-list] status of ffcall

From: Sam Steingold
Subject: [DotGNU]Re: [clisp-list] status of ffcall
Date: 26 Nov 2002 18:56:48 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50

> * In message <address@hidden>
> * On the subject of "[clisp-list] status of ffcall"
> * Sent on Tue, 26 Nov 2002 16:47:23 -0600
> * Honorable Stephen Compall <address@hidden> writes:
> I inquired on the DotGNU developers mailing list about using ffcall
> instead of the libffi from the GCC tree for the Portable .NET project,
> and here is his reply:
>  > It appears that the most recent version of ffcall, 1.8, dates back
>  > to January 2001.  Whereas libffi is part of the gcc tree, and has
>  > the possibility of being actively maintained by the gcc community.
>  >
>  > While ffcall seems to be more complete, I would feel happier if
>  > there was active maintainence of the project.
> I will point him to the CLISP tree on Savannah.

FFCALL's source tree is hosted on SourceForge.

> However, I'd like a more canonical point to stand on: does ffcall meet
> the requirement of "active maintenance"?

FFCALL is distributed with CLISP and is used by CLISP's FFI.
It has been ported to many platforms (most recently to IBM s/390 by
Gerhard Tonn on 2002-03-24 and to HP-UX assembler by LaMont Jones on

The author of FFCALL, Bruno Haible, is the ultimate authority on the
status of FFCALL.

Sam Steingold ( running RedHat8 GNU/Linux
<> <> <>
<> <>
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]