Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 18:14:53 +0400 From: Roman Kurakin <rik@cronyx.ru> To: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org> Cc: freebsd-net@lists.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Packing netgraph structs Message-ID: <40E41C5D.6030906@cronyx.ru> In-Reply-To: <931572E3-CB5E-11D8-99F8-000A95DA50A6@recoil.org> References: <122AE07F-CB5B-11D8-99F8-000A95DA50A6@recoil.org> <40E40839.20500@cronyx.ru> <931572E3-CB5E-11D8-99F8-000A95DA50A6@recoil.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anil Madhavapeddy wrote: > On 1 Jul 2004, at 13:48, Roman Kurakin wrote: > >> If this is a problem why can't you make some wrapper that will >> pack/unpack written on C, >> which will be a lib for you? > > > Because I want to minimise the size of the foreign bindings - this > would require C code for every single Netgraph struct. If they were > packed, I could just do it all in OCaml. Packing lead to perfomance issues. So it is used only in case of packet specifications were each bit may have its own meaning and there place is fixed by protocol which is lang/arch/etc independant and we cant just add a couple of them. > Isn't this a problem for other language bindings as well, or is > everyone doing Netgraph userland hacking in C at the moment? For Unix programming I do not use other languages than C, except for scripting. And I believe I am not in minority. IMHO perfomace issue is more important than cross language interaction which is in minority. rik > > -- > Anil Madhavapeddy > http://anil.recoil.org > University of Cambridge > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40E41C5D.6030906>