Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 21:12:00 +0100 From: Anil Madhavapeddy <anil@recoil.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-net@lists.freebsd.org Subject: Re: Packing netgraph structs Message-ID: <E8F2E4C8-CB9A-11D8-99F8-000A95DA50A6@recoil.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0407011242510.91303-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0407011242510.91303-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1 Jul 2004, at 20:47, Julian Elischer wrote: > > I think that nearly all languages these day shave to take into account > "what C does" and they need to have packing etc taken explicitly into > account when they do syscalls etc. so I don't think that you will have > too many problems and there should be some facility available to you to > do the right packing if it's needed. > > The C packing is done to maximise the efficiency of the structure given > that particular platform. I don't think that packing it would be useful > as the messages are never supposed to leave the machine, and if we pack > netgraph messages, then where do we stop? Should we pack all ioctl > structures too? > > (sorry to make life more difficult for you but...) No problem, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something - I'm just writing a small program to create C structs and ML definitions at the moment, shouldn't be too bad. > > julian > > BTW what IS OCaml? I've seen it mentionned a few times now.. A modern functional language - statically typed, generates pretty tight native code on a number of architectures. Extremely nice for speedy networking code without the hassle of memory leaks and overflows, or the portability and speed issues of Java. -anil
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E8F2E4C8-CB9A-11D8-99F8-000A95DA50A6>