Re: [PATCH] libxen-3.0 (libxc rewrite)

[Jeremy Katz <katzj@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:55 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> >On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 09:18 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>Do you have a suggestion for an alternative?  I know there are a number 
> >>of binding-generators but I thought Pyrex was the most widely used.
> >
> >Pyrex is probably the most generally used -- the stuff pygtk uses is
> >nice, but not very general.
> >
> >In most cases, though, bindings done by hand end up being higher quality
> >than something that's just being generated.
> >
> I was afraid that that would be your answer.
> 
> I would really like to automatically generate the bindings.  There is 
> more C code in the current libxc/libxu python bindings than all of vm-tools.

That doesn't make it bad :)  You're just moving where the code is to
another place by generating the bindings.

> gcc4 is still a bit off and I imagine that Pyrex will be updated as 
> needed.  If it ever proves to be painful to deal with, I'll break down 
> and add bindings by hand.  Does that seem like a reasonable plan moving 
> forward?

gcc4 isn't that far off.  It's in the Fedora development tree and we're
using it to compile everything now.  See Rik's multiple patches to fix
warnings that pop up with gcc4.  And counting on Pyrex being fixed based
on the complete lack of response to questions on this topic may be
wishful thinking.  Maybe I'll look at Pyrex a little this afternoon and
see if I can figure out how to fix what it's doing.

Jeremy



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: 2005 Windows Mobile Application Contest
Submit applications for Windows Mobile(tm)-based Pocket PCs or Smartphones
for the chance to win $25,000 and application distribution. Enter today at
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6882&alloc_id=15148&op=click