The SWIG documentation is pretty detailed - http://www.swig.org/Doc1.3/Sections.html SWIG has a concept of pointer ownership which it uses to manager pointers. The interface files contain the C function declarations and variable declarations. The wrapper function generated is the 'glue' between the scripting language and the underlying C function.
Only concern is there may be some 'code bloat' --Bhaskar. On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:26 AM, bhaskar jain <bhaskar.jain2...@gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks for the response. > > What i faced was intentionally passing unexpected/nonsense data cause > segmentation fault in one case. Was wondering if this is because of SWIG or > because of the underlying library (which in turn uses glib). But the > underlying library looks ok. Have you faced such issues while working with > SWIG. Is it reliable to be used in production level code which will be > pretty load intensive. > > Also who frees the pointers in case of python binding? Some functions say > the caller should free the pointer but in case of python binding does the > python memory manager frees it using the standard reference count. > > I believed the interface file (.i file) has to be hand-written. Can you > please elaborate on the Makefile approach. > > --Bhaskar. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Gora Mohanty <g...@srijan.in> wrote: > >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 00:04:01 +0530 >> bhaskar jain <bhaskar.jain2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> > Problem is that there was a bug and they have changed a few lines >> > in one of the C files. So my question is - will just applying the >> > patch and installing the library again, will i get a fresh good >> > python binding or do i need to regenerate the wrapper_ *.c files >> > using SWIG. >> >> It depends on what was changed, but it is best to regenerate >> everything. Is this that much of a concern in terms of time, >> etc. It is quite easy to set up a Makefile to do this. >> >> > Any tips in working with SWIG, using the python bindings will be >> > appreciated. Also is it a frequent problem of segmentation faults >> > using the python bindings of C programs which employ lot of >> > pointers. Sorry, I am new to SWIG. >> > >> > Is it advisable to use SWIG at all? >> [...] >> >> I would enthusiastically advocate SWIG, but have had arguments with >> people who take a different view, and whose opinions I respect. The >> best counter-arguments I have heard is cleanness of the generated >> code, and efficiency, but at least for a non-pedal-to-the-metal >> coder like me, SWIG definitely does the job. So, I would say that >> if you can take a look at the generated SWIG code, and think that >> you can do better, please do that, and contribute your approach >> back to SWIG. >> >> Regards, >> Gora >> _______________________________________________ >> BangPypers mailing list >> BangPypers@python.org >> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers >> > >
_______________________________________________ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
