On 09/06/22 11:08, Eric Blake wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 02:00:22PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
We could further compress things to have:
pr " debug (h, \"leave: ret=\""; (match ret with | RBool -> pr "%%d\", ret"
and so on, to get rid of yet another spurious pair of "" in the generated C code (since the return format is always exacty one argument, there's no need to have the generated api.c have "... ret=" "%<>" when "... ret=%<>" would do). I can touch that up in a followup, if it makes sense.
It seems to simplify the generated code (which we sometimes quote in commit messages, when patching the generator), so if it's not a big burden, I'd be in favor of it.
); pr ");\n"; (match ret with | RStaticString | RString -> pr " free (ret_printable);\n" | RBool | RErr | RFd | RInt | RInt64 | RCookie | RSizeT - | RUInt | REnum _ | RFlags _ | RUIntPtr -> () + | RUInt | RUIntPtr | RUInt64 | REnum _ | RFlags _ -> ()
looks like there were multiple RUintPtr omissions, those could go into a unified (but from this, separate) patch.
Actually, this line rearranged RUIntPtr to be earlier in the line (we don't have a strong precedent on whether branches to the match should be in alphabetical, declaration, or abitrary order).
Yup, sorry. The reordering, combined with the insertion, threw me off.
); pr " }\n"; pr " }\n" @@ -904,6 +907,8 @@ let pr "This call returns a bitmask.\n"; | RUIntPtr -> pr "This call returns a C<uintptr_t>.\n"; + | RUInt64 -> + pr "This call returns a counter.\n";
Hmmm. On one hand, I like that here we do tie the new type to counters. On the other hand, the explanation doesn't match the generic name "RUint64". Not sure what to suggest :/
If we later find ourselves needing an actual 64-bit unsigned value, unrelated to counters, we can add RCounter at that point and repurpose RUInt64 to the new purpose. We've done that sort of enum splitting before; the enum names are less important that the underlying abstract type that then has to be ported to all the language bindings for the semantics it will be representing.
OK.
+++ b/generator/Python.ml @@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ let | RErr -> pr " py_ret = Py_None;\n"; pr " Py_INCREF (py_ret);\n" - | RFd | RInt | REnum _ | RFlags _ | RSizeT | RUInt | RUIntPtr -> + | RFd | RInt | REnum _ | RFlags _ | RSizeT | RUInt | RUIntPtr | RUInt64 -> pr " py_ret = PyLong_FromLong (ret);\n" | RInt64 | RCookie -> pr " py_ret = PyLong_FromLongLong (ret);\n"
This does not look right; I think RUInt64 belongs with RInt64 and RCookie (so that we invoke PyLong_FromLongLong()).
D'oh. Actual bug; now fixed as followup commit f79a1ac1
Thanks for reviewing.
Cheers Laszlo