GHC 7.6 now supports a "capi" calling convention which allows
"function-like" macros to be invoked from Haskell code with "foreign
import". To me this seems like rather odd design.
The advantage of pure ABI-level FFI specifications (the standard
Haskell FFI) is that wrappers can be generated in pure assembly by the
Haskell compiler itself and there is no dependence on the C language.
In contrast, "capi" requires the wrapper to be produced by a C
compiler since the wrapped macro can expand to an arbitrary C
My question is: if the Haskell compiler is to support FFI wrappers
that require a C compiler, why then are the wrappers so limited in
functionality? The "capi" calling convention only supports
function-like macros, i.e. ones that take expression arguments and
expand into an expression. But there are many other kinds of macros,
too: ones whose arguments are types or identifiers, and that may
expand into a declaration or a statement. In fact, function-like
macros are (or should be) a rarity, since inline functions serve the
same purpose better.
So when a well-designed C API has public macros, these macros are
usually _not_ function-like. But using these from Haskell still
requires writing some wrapper C functions (or, now, wrapper macros!)
manually. Not a big deal, but then again, writing wrappers in C for
function-like macros wasn't a big deal previously, either.
So to me "capi" seems to buy very little, and it only supports
strangely specific needs. If a Haskell implementation is to support
FFI wrappers that must be compiled via C, a much more general solution
would have been to allow arbitrary inline C code (instead of just the
name of a macro) in the definition of the wrapper. I can't see that
costing much more than the current design, and its benefits seem much
On Sun, Oct 07, 2012 at 03:34:45PM +0300, Lauri Alanko wrote:
> In fact, function-like
> macros are (or should be) a rarity, since inline functions serve the
> same purpose better.
> So to me "capi" seems to buy very little, and it only supports
> strangely specific needs.
In theory, perhaps. In practice, at least one platform defining a
standard function with something like
#define fopen fopen64
is common, and I think the standard explicitly allows many such
functions to be defined as macros. We certainly use capi a lot in the