Show enters and exits. Hide enters and exits.
| 00:00:27 | toulmean | brixen: oh yeah. Give me the most reluctant task you did today ? |
| 00:01:36 | toulmean | I'm not sure I can communicate what I did today actually |
| 00:01:37 | toulmean | nm |
| 00:05:51 | evan | brixen: so, i'm going to bootstrap FFI the same way cola is bootstrapped |
| 00:06:20 | evan | by injecting 2 preexisting values, FFI::MemoryPointer::CURRENT_PROCESS and FFI::MemoryPointer::DLSYM |
| 00:06:40 | evan | those + create_backend taking a MemoryPointer for the function instead of searching |
| 00:06:59 | evan | means we can move a bunch of functionality into ruby |
| 00:07:06 | brixen | awesome |
| 00:07:21 | brixen | how do you get the memory pointer for the function? |
| 00:07:46 | evan | for any function? you call dlsym |
| 00:07:50 | brixen | ok |
| 00:08:27 | brixen | I'm trying to see where is this dlsym you call... FFI::MemoryPointer::DLSYM ? |
| 00:08:37 | evan | i'll show you |
| 00:08:38 | evan | one sec. |
| 00:10:04 | evan | http://gist.github.com/416554 |
| 00:10:21 | evan | http://gist.github.com/416556 |
| 00:11:03 | evan | i've changed attach_function to take a MemoryPointer for the address of a function |
| 00:11:08 | evan | instead of just the name of a function |
| 00:11:14 | evan | thats the key. |
| 00:11:27 | brixen | I see |
| 00:12:02 | evan | this should allow the FFI system to build the rest of itself. |
| 00:12:50 | brixen | but this now takes 2 lines for every one previous attach_function |
| 00:12:55 | brixen | am I missing something? |
| 00:13:00 | evan | yep |
| 00:13:01 | evan | :) |
| 00:13:05 | brixen | ok :) |
| 00:13:13 | evan | attach_function stays as is. |
| 00:13:18 | evan | API wise |
| 00:13:59 | evan | but inside attach_function, we'll use the bootstrap open_library and find_symbol |
| 00:14:06 | evan | you'll see. |
| 00:14:10 | brixen | ok, I see |
| 00:14:25 | brixen | diffs are hard, let's have manhattans |
| 00:14:30 | evan | tots. |
| 01:09:06 | cremes | maybe one more episode... best. show. ever. |
| 09:02:11 | duncanmv | evan: any idea what could be crashing the vm on recent gcc/glibc? |
| 09:02:28 | duncanmv | http://pastebin.com/z1MUVghc |
| 13:52:14 | jlecour | Hi |
| 13:52:35 | jlecour | I've tried to install rubinius on Mac OS X 10.6 through rvm |
| 13:52:41 | jlecour | and I got errors |
| 13:52:55 | jlecour | wayneeseguin (from rvm) told me to ask here |
| 13:53:04 | jlecour | http://gist.github.com/416899 |
| 13:57:00 | Defiler | jlecour: huh.. looks like 'configure' didn't go well.. it shouldn't try to proceed after failing to find llvm |
| 13:57:25 | jlecour | I thought this had to do with LLVM but I wasn't sure |
| 13:57:42 | jlecour | so I have to install LLVM first ? |
| 13:58:19 | jlecour | wayneeseguin: I'm not 100% sure, but I didn't see this dependency in `rvm notes` |
| 13:58:56 | jlecour | LLVM is mentioned only for MacRuby |
| 13:58:57 | cremes | jlecour: there is a binary distribution of llvm for rbx; the rbx configure step should download the right one |
| 13:59:24 | jlecour | cremes: it seems that it didn't download it |
| 13:59:25 | cremes | rbx has dependencies on a specific llvm tag so it isn't recommended to use a system-wide version of llvm |
| 13:59:32 | jlecour | ok |
| 14:00:18 | cremes | i *think* the configure script is pretty simple; you might want to check the last few commits against it to see what has changed and potentially borked rvm |
| 14:00:37 | wayneeseguin | jlecour: no, it downloads it's ownLLVM iirc |
| 14:00:41 | Defiler | jlecour: try changing to the source directory where rvm was trying to build it.. |
| 14:00:46 | Defiler | ..and run "./configure" |
| 14:01:04 | wayneeseguin | ./configure --prefix=$HOME/.rvm/rubies/rbx-1.0.0 |
| 14:01:33 | Defiler | that too; just wanted to see the error, if any, where it looks for llvm, or a prebuilt version |
| 14:02:33 | jlecour | the ./configure went well |
| 14:04:26 | jlecour | I've wipped the whole thing and trying again |
| 14:08:29 | jlecour | it's not better |
| 14:08:50 | jlecour | It's not a big deal for me, I just wanted to try rubinius |
| 14:09:10 | jlecour | but if you want me to try something, let me know |
| 14:09:15 | cremes | i'm getting the same problem... |
| 14:09:30 | cremes | you can still try rbx; it's just broken under rvm at the moment |
| 14:09:37 | jlecour | :-) |
| 14:09:42 | cremes | clone the repository and build it manually; takes two commands |
| 14:09:48 | cremes | ./configure && rake |
| 14:09:59 | jlecour | ok, i'll try |
| 14:10:01 | jlecour | thanks |
| 14:10:51 | wayneeseguin | tries on a fresh rvm |
| 14:12:40 | wayneeseguin | ok installed 1.8.7 fine, it's now downloading rubinius |
| 14:12:49 | wayneeseguin | it's running ++ eval 'ruby configure --prefix=/Users/wayne/.rvm/rubies/rbx-1.0.0-20100514 --skip-system' |
| 14:13:17 | wayneeseguin | now running rake install |
| 14:13:45 | cremes | i tried rbx-head and it barfed |
| 14:14:29 | wayneeseguin | ahh -head, that's not the one I'm trying |
| 14:15:07 | cremes | jlecour: which rbx did you try to install? 1.0 or head? |
| 14:15:24 | wayneeseguin | jlecour: YOu made sure to 'rvm install 1.8.7' first ? |
| 14:16:15 | jlecour | wayneeseguin: I have 1.8.7-p249 but right now I'm on ree-1.8.7-2010.01 |
| 14:16:25 | jlecour | cremes: I just did `rvm install rbx` |
| 14:16:35 | cremes | that's for 1.0 |
| 14:16:41 | jlecour | ok |
| 14:16:46 | jlecour | I'll try head |
| 14:20:10 | jlecour | same errors with rbx-head |
| 14:20:54 | wayneeseguin | I'm still waiting for it to compile |
| 14:21:02 | wayneeseguin | jlecour: you are on latest head right? rvm update --head |
| 14:22:20 | cremes | wayneeseguin: 1.0 worked for me but head did not; i did a --head update yesterday, any changes since? |
| 14:22:38 | jlecour | wayneeseguin: Yes I am up to date |
| 14:24:27 | wayneeseguin | cremes: yes -head fails the compile step ('/Users/wayne/.rvm/bin/ruby-1.8.7-p249 -S rake install --trace) |
| 14:25:25 | cremes | wayneeseguin: i can confirm head fails on osx 10.6.3 |
| 14:25:32 | cremes | os related? |
| 14:25:45 | wayneeseguin | This is the actual error |
| 14:25:45 | wayneeseguin | https://gist.github.com/32f64228539d0f925a51 |
| 14:25:51 | wayneeseguin | I'm on OSX 10.6.3 |
| 14:26:01 | cremes | hold the phone; my last attempt just succeeded |
| 14:26:06 | cremes | here's my theory... |
| 14:26:09 | wayneeseguin | almost looks like make is trying to do this: /Users/wayne/.rvm/rubies/rbx-head/bin/rbx |
| 14:26:12 | wayneeseguin | before it exists |
| 14:26:34 | cremes | i think the install prerequisites step is broken for head; it did not download anything and then failed with the same error you pasted |
| 14:26:49 | cremes | however, i installed rbx 1.0 and it did download some prereq |
| 14:26:56 | cremes | my next try on rbx-head succeeded |
| 14:27:05 | wayneeseguin | I haven't changed anything recently with RVM except for calling 'ruby configure' vs './configure' as evan suggested |
| 14:27:09 | cremes | any merit to my theory? |
| 14:27:37 | wayneeseguin | it's possible it doesn't have a prereq downlaoded |
| 14:27:57 | wayneeseguin | except the actual 'download rubinius, configure install' rvm does the prereq of 1.8.7 first |
| 14:28:37 | cremes | i already have 1.8.7 installed; so what did rbx 1.0 download? llvm? |
| 16:01:23 | evan | the failure on install with head we should have fixed shortly if not already |
| 16:04:10 | evan | and I guess everyone else left. |
| 16:04:17 | evan | i need to see rvm's output from running configure... |
| 16:07:02 | brixen | morning |
| 16:07:45 | evan | how are you this morning? |
| 16:08:14 | brixen | good |
| 16:08:25 | brixen | ~1/2 done editing capi specs |
| 16:08:34 | brixen | must. finish. them. |
| 16:08:35 | brixen | :) |
| 16:08:43 | wayneeseguin | evan: https://gist.github.com/32f64228539d0f925a51 |
| 16:09:08 | evan | why does it say you're not in this channel for me... |
| 16:09:12 | evan | thats... bizarre. |
| 16:09:18 | evan | brb. |
| 16:09:40 | evan | wayneeseguin: ok, thats better. |
| 16:09:42 | evan | wayneeseguin: yeah, i'll fix that shortly. |
| 16:09:57 | evan | do you have the output of configure? seems like the guy before had some error with that. |
| 16:39:26 | brixen | evan: heh, you tweeted the line before my line |
| 16:39:39 | evan | we're on the same wavelength! |
| 16:39:43 | brixen | I wanted to get the tattoo line in there, but not enough room |
| 16:39:51 | brixen | heh |
| 16:41:06 | evan | :) |
| 16:58:09 | evan | ok, getting callback's massaged in. |
| 16:58:20 | brixen | awesome! |
| 16:58:21 | evan | I'm on my second meat tenderizer though. |
| 16:58:27 | brixen | heh |
| 17:09:50 | brixen | evan: are we planning to support rb_define_hooked_variable? |
| 17:09:59 | evan | only if we have to. |
| 17:10:03 | brixen | k |
| 17:10:09 | evan | i've never seen them used in extensions. |
| 17:10:14 | brixen | I'll just guard it not_supported_on for now |
| 17:10:39 | evan | rad. |
| 17:10:41 | evan | callbacks work. |
| 17:10:51 | brixen | sweet |
| 17:11:01 | evan | the rewire of the FFI system yesterday paid off |
| 17:11:05 | evan | as slava indicated |
| 17:11:10 | brixen | most excellent |
| 17:11:16 | evan | being able to attach a pointer as a method is key |
| 17:11:41 | evan | i'm glad we waited though |
| 17:11:50 | evan | because I can reuse a bunch of capi stuff to make it easier. |
| 17:12:31 | brixen | nice |
| 17:15:40 | cremes | evan: started looking at fixing up the struct layout code to handle the newer syntax |
| 17:15:47 | evan | ok |
| 17:16:07 | cremes | any issue with reusing chunks of ruby from the ffi gem? |
| 17:16:29 | cremes | (assuming it has specs, of course) |
| 17:16:48 | cremes | i hate reinventing the wheel when i can avoid it |
| 17:19:29 | evan | well. |
| 17:19:36 | evan | it will probably have to be cleaned up |
| 17:19:49 | evan | the style in the ffi gem isn't to my liking. |
| 17:21:12 | cremes | don't tell me they're using included hooks in there too... ;) |
| 17:24:09 | evan | nothing surprises me anymore. |
| 17:26:02 | brixen | evan: I'm thinking about allowing arbitrary operators in Poison so you can def methods like 8============> |
| 17:26:13 | evan | hah |
| 17:26:20 | tarcieri | needs more 8=========================D |
| 17:26:24 | brixen | is roflmao |
| 17:26:40 | brixen | evan: did I surprise you? :) |
| 17:26:55 | evan | well, then you can have the tie bomber operator: <o-O> |
| 17:27:11 | brixen | tarcieri: they are arbitrary, so yours can definitely be bigger than mine :) |
| 17:27:11 | evan | also, popular, the Y wing: <O-O> |
| 17:27:20 | brixen | evan: yep |
| 17:27:40 | brixen | I could warn based on the size of the operator |
| 17:27:53 | brixen | "yo dawg, looks like you likes some operatorz" |
| 17:29:11 | evan | hah |
| 17:29:20 | evan | you saw the stuff about -Xzibit, right? |
| 17:29:20 | JamesKilton | |-o-| >.> ^.^ (-.-) the possibilities are endless |
| 17:29:25 | brixen | evan: yeah |
| 17:29:56 | brixen | I was going to write a classification of languages based on whether they allow the (.)(.) operator |
| 17:30:05 | evan | hehe |
| 17:30:09 | brixen | there are two types of languages, explicit and prude |
| 17:30:11 | brixen | hehe |
| 17:30:12 | tarcieri | brixen: I was more concerned about the conical tip |
| 17:30:29 | brixen | tarcieri: oh, I know what you're concerned about ;) |
| 17:30:34 | brixen | tarcieri: mine was a rocket btw |
| 17:31:33 | evan | what should happen when a callback raises an exception? |
| 17:31:50 | tarcieri | :( @ callbacks raising exceptions |
| 17:31:51 | evan | i'm tempted to just eat it. |
| 17:32:00 | evan | tarcieri: mega. |
| 17:32:09 | BrianRice-work | hm |
| 17:32:34 | BrianRice-work | so, ideally, you could turn the exception into a signal |
| 17:32:47 | cremes | evan: eat it |
| 17:32:54 | brixen | call a special method on the recv you invoked the callback on |
| 17:33:16 | evan | I really don't want to have to support unwinding through an FFI function. |
| 17:33:22 | cremes | how does factor handle it? |
| 17:33:25 | cremes | :) |
| 17:33:26 | evan | it will slow down the JIT inlining of FFI a bunch. |
| 17:33:29 | evan | slava: ? |
| 17:34:12 | dbussink | does the ffi gem handle it? |
| 17:34:50 | brixen | evan: are you using meissner's syntax? (callback :qsort_cmp, ...) |
| 17:34:52 | cremes | dbussink: i don't know what it does with exceptions in callbacks; i should try it |
| 17:35:09 | evan | brixen: yeah, i have to. |
| 17:35:16 | evan | ruby-ffi doesn't do anything with this |
| 17:35:23 | brixen | add an optional arg to #callback to take a method name to call on this module |
| 17:35:29 | evan | which means that it unwinds through the FFI called function |
| 17:35:36 | evan | because thats what rb_raise will do. |
| 17:35:45 | evan | since rb_raise uses setjmp |
| 17:37:19 | evan | if a callback can only be called from the function it's past to |
| 17:37:29 | evan | i can support unwinding without effecting the JIT inlining code |
| 17:37:37 | evan | passed to, rather. |
| 17:39:51 | evan | ok, |
| 17:39:54 | brixen | I think assuming the callback does not raise an exception is not unreasonable |
| 17:39:55 | evan | i'm going to just eat it |
| 17:39:56 | evan | for now. |
| 17:39:58 | brixen | yeah |
| 17:40:08 | evan | i'll print out an error. |
| 17:40:10 | evan | and eat it. |
| 17:40:13 | brixen | let someone show a good case for needing to raise an exception |
| 17:40:16 | evan | er. warning. |
| 17:40:49 | brixen | "yo dawg, weird shit is happening under the covers here, did you mean to be stirring shit up" |
| 17:41:18 | brixen | thinks be eod evan will have added -Xzibit |
| 17:41:24 | brixen | er s/be/by/ |
| 17:41:36 | evan | i might! |
| 17:41:41 | brixen | heh |
| 17:41:43 | evan | I told mattly about Rubinius::Config |
| 17:41:46 | evan | i'm waiting for his patch |
| 17:41:49 | brixen | ahh |
| 17:44:24 | evan | brixen: what was your comment about the optional arg to callback? |
| 17:44:50 | brixen | just wondering if there's a way to take a method to call directly |
| 17:44:59 | brixen | when an exception is raised |
| 17:45:42 | brixen | callback :fun, :fritz, [:pointer], :int |
| 17:45:51 | brixen | here :fritz is a method on that module |
| 17:46:04 | brixen | here, where |
| 17:46:11 | evan | i can do that, sure. |
| 17:46:12 | cremes | brixen: what do you do when your exception handling method raises? |
| 17:46:18 | evan | atm, it will take anything that responds to call |
| 17:46:26 | brixen | cremes: you email that person's mothed |
| 17:46:26 | cremes | eat it |
| 17:46:29 | brixen | er mother |
| 17:47:11 | cremes | i knew it! rbx is achieving its next level of consciousness by getting email built in |
| 17:47:14 | evan | i'm eating it |
| 17:47:18 | evan | and printing out a stern warning. |
| 17:47:19 | cremes | it's almost as cool as lisp now |
| 17:48:14 | brixen | (mailto 'cremes-mom, (message ("he's been a baaaad boy"))) |
| 17:48:42 | brixen | fail, that , snuck in there |
| 17:48:43 | cremes | adding that text to my mom's spam filter so she never sees it |
| 17:48:47 | brixen | cus I'm not a true lispy |
| 17:48:55 | BrianRice-work | once you know lisp, the lisp code of people who don't know lisp always looks like the worst code in the world :) |
| 17:49:06 | brixen | BrianRice-work: haha |
| 17:49:41 | BrianRice-work | probably second only to "fake cobol" (except that fake cobol always looks better than real cobol) |
| 18:03:02 | wayneeseguin | evan: I was at lunch, do you still need the full configure output? |
| 18:03:19 | evan | wayneeseguin: if you have it from that guy, it would help |
| 18:03:28 | evan | he didn't seem to be able to download LLVM |
| 18:03:30 | evan | never seen that. |
| 18:04:02 | wayneeseguin | evan: ahh... no I don't have his, just the one I encountered which I gisted to you |
| 18:04:25 | evan | ok, no prob. |
| 18:04:28 | evan | if/when he shows up |
| 18:04:30 | evan | i'll get it. |
| 18:17:08 | dbussink | what would -Xzibit do? |
| 18:17:45 | dbussink | such a think should surpassed by what it does |
| 18:17:52 | dbussink | stupid sentence |
| 18:17:55 | BrianRice-work | it would pimp your ride |
| 18:18:10 | evan | mattly wants to make it pimp your error messages |
| 18:20:06 | evan | I wish libffi's trampolines didn't confuse gdb so much. |
| 18:20:20 | evan | they don't use frame pointers, so gdb can't walk up through them. |
| 18:27:51 | jarib | would 1.size be a safe cross-impl. way of checking if ruby is 32- or 64-bit? |
| 18:28:06 | evan | jarib: i think so. |
| 18:28:13 | evan | i'd prefer something more obvious |
| 18:28:16 | evan | personally. |
| 18:28:24 | evan | like |
| 18:28:32 | evan | IS32BIT = (1.size == 4) |
| 18:28:33 | brixen | jarib: that's what I do in mspec |
| 18:28:45 | brixen | yeah, I have a helper for it |
| 18:28:53 | jarib | ok, cool |
| 19:03:40 | jarib | brixen: 1.size == 8 #=> true on JRuby with 32-bit JVM though |
| 19:05:25 | brixen | they use 63 bit fixnums afaik |
| 19:05:30 | brixen | you should ask #jruby though |
| 19:05:46 | jarib | i am :) |
| 19:06:11 | jarib | just to let you know that 1.size is not a safe cross-impl. way of detecting the arch |
| 19:06:33 | brixen | that's not really the use of it though |
| 19:06:44 | brixen | it behaves correctly with the 32 vs 64bit specs |
| 19:07:10 | brixen | what are you doing that you need to see whether the platform is 32/64bit from Ruby code? |
| 19:07:44 | jarib | brixen: which .dll to load through FFI |
| 19:07:56 | brixen | yeah, that info should be in FFI |
| 19:08:05 | brixen | doing 1.size would not be a good test for that |
| 19:09:05 | jarib | but it should be enough on mri/rbx, right? |
| 19:09:25 | brixen | probably, but that's not really the point |
| 19:09:38 | brixen | if that info is needed no use FFI, it needs to be *in* IIF |
| 19:09:41 | brixen | er FFI |
| 19:10:06 | brixen | ug to use FFI* |
| 19:10:19 | jarib | right |
| 19:10:24 | jarib | i'll push for that :) |
| 19:10:32 | brixen | indeed |
| 19:10:43 | brixen | evan: ^^^ |
| 19:11:21 | evan | 10-4 |
| 19:11:31 | evan | it shall be done. |
| 19:11:35 | brixen | :) |
| 19:13:33 | jarib | i guess FFI.type_size(:int) might be enough |
| 19:13:41 | jarib | which is already working on jruby |
| 19:13:45 | evan | should be. |
| 19:13:45 | evan | yes. |
| 19:13:59 | brixen | but would be nice to have that as a constant directly |
| 19:14:05 | evan | sure. |
| 19:30:25 | slava | cremes: how does factor handle unwinding through C frames? |
| 19:30:29 | slava | cremes: it doesn't :-) |
| 19:30:34 | evan | oh good. |
| 19:30:52 | cremes | slava: cheater |
| 19:31:25 | slava | cremes: if you wrap an FFI call in an exception handler, and the FFI call makes a callback, the callback won't invoke your handler if it throws an exception |
| 19:31:43 | cremes | understood |
| 19:31:50 | slava | there's a default handler at the top level of each callback |
| 19:41:42 | slava | jarib: int is always 32 bits though |
| 19:43:42 | jarib | slava: yeah, evan mentioned that in #jruby, using :pointer for now |
| 19:59:52 | evan | woo! |
| 19:59:56 | evan | i've earned lunch! |
| 20:00:02 | evan | the callback syntax works |
| 20:00:10 | evan | and a block is passed as the callback. |
| 22:14:17 | evan | i wonder if cardinal is completely dead at this point. |
| 22:18:45 | brixen | probably? |
| 22:19:26 | brixen | it's been another year, looking forward to hearing about parrot at oscon |
| 22:19:27 | evan | i just tried to find any trace ofit |
| 22:19:35 | brixen | it's the only place I hear about it |
| 22:19:36 | evan | it's nearly impossible |
| 22:19:42 | evan | people talked about it last year? |
| 22:19:54 | brixen | I mean parrot, not cardinal |
| 22:20:18 | brixen | I never hear anything about cardinal |
| 22:20:20 | evan | oh |
| 22:20:23 | evan | right |
| 22:20:49 | evan | i saw some interview that said perl6 would be out within a year. |
| 22:21:01 | brixen | interesting |
| 22:21:05 | evan | i wonder if thats still pie-in-the-sky |
| 22:21:07 | evan | my guess is yes |
| 22:21:11 | brixen | probably |
| 22:37:52 | Defiler | within a year of what? |
| 22:38:05 | Defiler | maybe a light-year |
| 22:39:53 | evan | cremes: you around? |
| 22:40:55 | brixen | Defiler: that would make now a long time ago, in a galaxy far away... |
| 22:41:00 | brixen | almost |
| 23:23:39 | evan | ok |
| 23:23:41 | evan | callbacks are ready. |
| 23:25:14 | cremes | evan: around for just a short time. what's up? |
| 23:25:27 | evan | I didn't see in github where you use FFI::Function |
| 23:25:44 | cremes | i'll find it... |
| 23:26:05 | evan | i've got it working though. |
| 23:26:15 | cremes | evanhttp://github.com/chuckremes/ffi-rzmq/blob/master/lib/ffi-rzmq/wrapper.rb#L49 |
| 23:26:35 | cremes | incredibly good news |
| 23:26:48 | evan | weird, i must have had an old version loaded. |
| 23:26:53 | cremes | what would take a mortal man 1 week to do, you finish in 24 hours |
| 23:27:16 | cremes | note that it is not used under RBX |
| 23:27:22 | evan | just so you know |
| 23:27:25 | cremes | i added that yesterday so i could get further |
| 23:27:30 | evan | FFI::Function#autorelease is a noop. |
| 23:27:32 | evan | on ruby-ffi |
| 23:27:39 | evan | it does nothing. |
| 23:27:47 | cremes | noted |
| 23:28:06 | cremes | i'll clean that up when i get to the specs on that file; thanks for pointing it out |
| 23:28:10 | evan | ack, i've got an old ruby-ffi checkout. :? |
| 23:28:12 | evan | :l |
| 23:28:13 | evan | :/ |
| 23:28:25 | cremes | try "git pull" :) |
| 23:28:37 | evan | it's for a private version of mine. |
| 23:28:56 | evan | I wonder how off i'm going to be... |
| 23:28:58 | evan | :/ |
| 23:29:44 | evan | welp, still a noop. |
| 23:29:45 | evan | anyway. |
| 23:29:54 | cremes | run the ruby-ffi specs against your stuff; perhaps that will shine a light |
| 23:30:00 | evan | um. |
| 23:30:05 | evan | not yet. |
| 23:30:13 | evan | they scare the shit out of me. |
| 23:31:35 | evan | oh, i see |
| 23:31:40 | evan | autorelease is used if FFI::Function |
| 23:31:43 | evan | nevermind. |
| 23:31:58 | evan | but i don't see why you wouldn't set it |
| 23:32:04 | evan | it's defaulted to true |
| 23:33:13 | cremes | i forget my reasoning; it's fuzzy now; i might have just been playing around with it to see if i could divine its effect |
| 23:33:23 | evan | it's true by default |
| 23:33:29 | evan | setting it to false would cause a memory leak. |
| 23:33:31 | evan | so it's pretty useless. |
| 23:34:13 | cremes | ah, that's why i did it. i was trying to measure the size of the memory leak and then forgot to pull it |
| 23:34:22 | cremes | i should have put a comment on it |
| 23:34:39 | evan | i'd just remove it |
| 23:34:52 | cremes | i will if i can't spec it |
| 23:35:05 | cremes | i'm rolling out the door soon; anything more you need this fine evening? |
| 23:36:15 | evan | nope |
| 23:36:19 | evan | have a nice weekend. |
| 23:36:29 | cremes | cool; ttyl |