On Sunday, Jan 5, 2003, at 19:23 Europe/Amsterdam, Bill Bumgarner wrote:
> On Sunday, Jan 5, 2003, at 13:03 US/Eastern, Ronald Oussoren wrote in
> a CVS log entry:
>> libFFI support now actually works (that is passes the testsuite with
>> the
>> same failures as the non-libFFI version)
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Some questions (as I know nothing about libFFI):
>
> - how hard is it to build libFFI such that PyObjC can be built
> with libFFI support?
It is not that hard, it is installed using the usual
'configure;make;make install' commands. You just have to download the
entire GCC distribution for this. Now that it actually works I'll try
to build an archive containing just libFFI + whatever else is needed to
build it.
>
> - this eliminates register.m, correct? How much smaller is the
> resulting binary?
It does eliminate register.m. The objc/_objc.so without libFFI is 2.6M
on my machine, while the one with libFFI is 0.6M (and that is including
libFFI)
>
> - what is the performance difference when using libFFI? (Maybe
> wrap runalltests with calls to 'timing'?)
That is something I haven't checked yet. I expect that the difference
won't be noticeable: The non-libFFI version uses NSInvocation, which
probably is as (in)efficient as libFFI.
I'll create a simple performance test, that might also be usefull to
check how much worse the performance of PyObjC is compared to native
Objective-C (w.r.t. message dispatching).
Ronald
|
