USB in Pharo?
Locked
 
|
All,
does anybody have some code or plugin to access USB ports with Pharo? Maybe something using libUSB or OpenUSB? Thanks, Udo |
|
|
I guess not :-)
I'll try to wrap libUSB then. I assume the future-proof way to use "a" FFI framework is to use the NB notation? Do I remember correctly that the NB notation is supposed to remain the same although the backend will change to something more like traditional FFI? So using NB notation w/o relying on the code generation is safe, correct? CU, Udo On 23.03.2015 16:15, Udo Schneider wrote: > All, > > does anybody have some code or plugin to access USB ports with Pharo? > Maybe something using libUSB or OpenUSB? > > Thanks, > > Udo > > > |
|
If the library is big you can use TalkFFI (you will find it in smalltalkhub) that automates the wrapping with nativeboost. On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Udo Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: I guess not :-) |
|
|
Just had a quick start with TalkFFI ... and after getting 32bit libs on
Mac OS X it finally worked. However running TalkFFI results in a wallback because (I assume) a type can't be infered. Is there any way to debug TalkFFI to get the C name of the offending type/function? All I'm seeing are their addresses :-( CU, Udo On 24/03/15 17:33, kilon alios wrote: > If the library is big you can use TalkFFI (you will find it in > smalltalkhub) that automates the wrapping with nativeboost. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Udo Schneider > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > I guess not :-) > > I'll try to wrap libUSB then. > > I assume the future-proof way to use "a" FFI framework is to use the > NB notation? Do I remember correctly that the NB notation is > supposed to remain the same although the backend will change to > something more like traditional FFI? > So using NB notation w/o relying on the code generation is safe, > correct? > > CU, > > Udo > > > > On 23.03.2015 16:15, Udo Schneider wrote: > > All, > > does anybody have some code or plugin to access USB ports with > Pharo? > Maybe something using libUSB or OpenUSB? > > Thanks, > > Udo > > > > > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by kilon.alios
I found the offending code. The original code is something like:
struct libusb_bos_dev_capability_descriptor *dev_capability #if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) [] /* valid C99 code */ #else [0] /* non-standard, but usually working code */ #endif ; This doesn't work with clang/TalkFFI. I assume based on the #defines it uses the C99 notation which doesn't work. "Hardcoding" it to the non-standard notation does work. E.g.: struct libusb_bos_dev_capability_descriptor *dev_capability //#if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) // [] /* valid C99 code */ //#else [0] /* non-standard, but usually working code */ //#endif ; It seems that this was the only showstopper as TalkFFI just generated a binding for the whole library w/o any problem. I'll start experimenting now ... CU, Udo On 24/03/15 17:33, kilon alios wrote: > If the library is big you can use TalkFFI (you will find it in > smalltalkhub) that automates the wrapping with nativeboost. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Udo Schneider > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote: > > I guess not :-) > > I'll try to wrap libUSB then. > > I assume the future-proof way to use "a" FFI framework is to use the > NB notation? Do I remember correctly that the NB notation is > supposed to remain the same although the backend will change to > something more like traditional FFI? > So using NB notation w/o relying on the code generation is safe, > correct? > > CU, > > Udo > > > > On 23.03.2015 16:15, Udo Schneider wrote: > > All, > > does anybody have some code or plugin to access USB ports with > Pharo? > Maybe something using libUSB or OpenUSB? > > Thanks, > > Udo > > > > > > > |
|
|
Hi Udo,
Thanks to report your experience on TalkFFI. Can you also post a small step by step tutorial of what you did to generate the NB bindings ? Thanks, #Luc 2015-03-25 11:37 GMT+01:00 Udo Schneider <[hidden email]>: I found the offending code. The original code is something like: |
|
|
Hi Luc,
Yepp will do. Time to write a blog entry again :-) CU, Udo On 25/03/15 11:42, Luc Fabresse wrote: > Hi Udo, > > Thanks to report your experience on TalkFFI. > Can you also post a small step by step tutorial of what you did to > generate the NB bindings ? > > Thanks, > > #Luc > > 2015-03-25 11:37 GMT+01:00 Udo Schneider > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>: > > I found the offending code. The original code is something like: > > struct libusb_bos_dev_capability___descriptor *dev_capability > #if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) > [] /* valid C99 code */ > #else > [0] /* non-standard, but usually working code */ > #endif > ; > > This doesn't work with clang/TalkFFI. I assume based on the #defines > it uses the C99 notation which doesn't work. "Hardcoding" it to the > non-standard notation does work. E.g.: > > struct libusb_bos_dev_capability___descriptor *dev_capability > //#if defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199901L) > // [] /* valid C99 code */ > //#else > [0] /* non-standard, but usually working code */ > //#endif > ; > > It seems that this was the only showstopper as TalkFFI just > generated a binding for the whole library w/o any problem. > > I'll start experimenting now ... > > CU, > > Udo > > > On 24/03/15 17:33, kilon alios wrote: > > If the library is big you can use TalkFFI (you will find it in > smalltalkhub) that automates the wrapping with nativeboost. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Udo Schneider > <[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]> > <mailto:[hidden email] > <mailto:[hidden email]>>> > wrote: > > I guess not :-) > > I'll try to wrap libUSB then. > > I assume the future-proof way to use "a" FFI framework is > to use the > NB notation? Do I remember correctly that the NB notation is > supposed to remain the same although the backend will change to > something more like traditional FFI? > So using NB notation w/o relying on the code generation is > safe, > correct? > > CU, > > Udo > > > > On 23.03.2015 16:15, Udo Schneider wrote: > > All, > > does anybody have some code or plugin to access USB > ports with > Pharo? > Maybe something using libUSB or OpenUSB? > > Thanks, > > Udo > > > > > > > > > > > |
|
|
Luc 2015-03-25 11:47 GMT+01:00 Udo Schneider <[hidden email]>: Hi Luc, |
|
|
In reply to this post by Udo Schneider
I have not used TalkFFI I only know that it exists. Very glad it works for you and I am also very interested on a blog post how you got it working and how you solved your problems. I am sure it will come handy one day :) On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Udo Schneider <[hidden email]> wrote: I found the offending code. The original code is something like: |
|
|
In reply to this post by Udo Schneider
Le 24/3/15 15:58, Udo Schneider a écrit : > I guess not :-) > > I'll try to wrap libUSB then. > > I assume the future-proof way to use "a" FFI framework is to use the > NB notation? Do I remember correctly that the NB notation is supposed > to remain the same although the backend will change to something more > like traditional FFI? Yes > So using NB notation w/o relying on the code generation is safe, correct? Yes! > > CU, > > Udo > > > On 23.03.2015 16:15, Udo Schneider wrote: >> All, >> >> does anybody have some code or plugin to access USB ports with Pharo? >> Maybe something using libUSB or OpenUSB? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Udo >> >> >> > > > > |
«
Return to Pharo Smalltalk Users
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |