[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] binary data
From: |
Kon Lovett |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] binary data |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:34:58 -0700 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 12, 2006, at 12:01 PM, john wrote:
Thanks guys for the responses.
Another related question...
If I allocate memory in Chicken using a byte-vector and pass this over
to C, what happens if the C code consumes the memory and does a
realloc on its pointer?
Probably a SEGV at some point, after who knows how much damage is done.
realloc might free, then malloc, when it cannot grow the existing
memory allocation in place. This would change the assumptions Chicken
makes about managed objects in its' heap; i.e. existing references to
this byte-vector would point to free'ed memory!
I think Felix suggested the use of unmanaged memory for this kind of
thing.
I am guessing Chicken (byte-vector-length)
would just not know about any extra bytes created but I could still
call file-write on the byte-vector with the new byte size if I obtain
it from C?
Much worse then "just not know."
Cheers,
John.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iEYEARECAAYFAkUHC+IACgkQJJNoeGe+5O4aGACfYpdKiantOmeF7Y52Ogk1UMJE
hzgAnRhCl6BrdoQlZ8LGoQ51MxyQPsFx
=sUns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----