Custom calling conventions

[Manu]

On 21 February 2012 20:12, Jacob Carlborg <doob at me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-02-21 18:03, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 21 February 2012 16:59, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin at michelf.com
>>    I have some experience bridging Objective-C and D. I once built a
>>    complete wrapper system for Objective-C objects, each object was
>>    wrapped by a D one. It worked very well, but it generated so much
>>    bloat that it became unusable as soon as I started defining enough
>>    classes for it to be useful. See the D/Objective-C bridge:
>>    <http://michelf.com/projects/_**_d-objc-bridge/<http://michelf.com/projects/__d-objc-bridge/>
>>    <http://michelf.com/projects/**d-objc-bridge/<http://michelf.com/projects/d-objc-bridge/>
>> >>.
>>
>>
>> What was the primary cause of the bloat? I can't imagine my proposal
>> causing any more bloat than the explicit jni call (or equivalent) woudl
>> have otherwise.
>>
>
> Template bloat. Every call bridging D/Objective-C is made throw a series
> of templates. This is for making it possible (less verbose) to create
> bindings.
>
> It might be possible to decrease the template bloat by having a tool that
> automatically generates the bindings and outputs what the templates do
> inline.


Why aren't the templates inline themselves? Although if the templates do a
lot of work, wouldn't that INCREASE the code volume?
I can't really imagine how Obj-C linkage could bloat so much, what was
involved? What did you have to do in addition to what a regular Obj-C
function call would have done?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120221/fba7856d/attachment-0001.html>