Maxime Henrion wrote:
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 12:55:41AM +0200, Maxime Henrion wrote:
When writing the binding for foo_new(), I need to open a file with fopen() to pass it the FILE *. Then I get a struct foo * that I can easily associate the the foo_destroy() finalizer. However, when finalizing the struct foo * object, I want to also close the FILE * handle.
If I write a small C function for doing the finalizer myself, I still wouldn't get passed the FILE * to close, only the struct foo * pointer which is of no use. Ah, yes, this does make the situation more interesting.
Looks like newForeignPtrEnv is maybe what you want?
Yeah, this is what I use now. I wrote a player_finalizer() function in C, that takes a FILE * and a pointer to the struct I'm handling, and which just closes the file. I then added these sources to the mix in my .cabal file (with C-Sources, Extra-Includes, etc), and registered this new finalizer using addForeignPtrFinalizerEnv.
This makes me want to ask you, what is so bad about Foreign.Concurrent that it should be avoided at almost any cost? It sure is likely to be much slower than just calling a plain C finalizer, but aren't Haskell threads super-cheap anyways?
In GHC ordinary ForeignPtr finalizers are implemented using Foreign.Concurrent anyway. It's not so much that Foreign.Concurrent should be avoided at all costs, but rather finalizers in general should be avoided, especially if you really care about when they run (i.e. bad things could happen if they run late or at unpredictable times). The Haskell code is not run "by the garbage collector", rather the garbage collector figures out which finalizers need running and creates a thread to run them. It's perfectly safe to have C finalizers that invoke Haskell code using GHC, although this is explicitly undefined by the FFI spec. The reason that Foreign.Concurrent is separate from Foreign.ForeignPtr is that it does essentially require concurrency to implement, whereas ordinary C finalizers can be run by the GC (although GHC doesn't do it this way). Cheers, Simon