[pypy-dev] Work plan for PyPy

Maciek Fijalkowski fijal at genesilico.pl
Sat Jun 16 13:03:16 CEST 2007

Simon Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:45:54 +0200
> Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> wrote:
>> Any comments or objections?  Are there people that already make heavy
>> use of rctypes, or the extension compiler?
> Indeed. Mainly rctypes.
> As well as an ever expanding use of libc, 
> we recently have interfaced to libSDL and cairo for some
> very funky rpython graphics apps. And we use libpython
> so that we can extract stuff from python modules.
> Also, we do byte shuffling with rctypes: reading binary data
> to/from buffers, etc.
> I hope we can do all this with rffi, but there are two really
> cool things about rctypes:
> 1) it runs on cpython (our main app takes 30minutes+ to compile)
> 2) it has an automatic code generator (ctypes can autogenerate
> python wrappers from C header files)
Very valid points indeed. The 1st point sounds unlikely, also because 
you might use C macros with rffi, which somehow invalidates possible 
uses on top of ctypes. What I do is I test (by compiling) several parts 
(some small code snippets involving ext functions). That make debugging 
a bit harder (reading C code), but pretty straightforward - for example 
memory management is done by hand in this part, which makes you 
responsible of tracking C structures and how long they need to live.

The second point is much more likely to happen and to be better than 
ctypes code generation. (Because rffi is way more Cish than ctypes are).

Also it makes stuff a bit harder when you don't submit your bindings back.

If you plan to come to the post-EP pypy sprint, we can sit a bit on the 
automatic code generator for rffi.


More information about the Pypy-dev mailing list