I have some good news! It works (Simplest test case). I spent several hours trying to track down where my code translation could be causing problems. And have concluded that core.sys.posix.sys.stat.stat_t is not correct for my 32bit Debian Linux machine.

I realize this is a big claim, so I'm going to look into it some more. But to get my code working I moved the getattr function into a C file and called that instead of using it from D. I also noticed that the value set to stat_t.st_mode would not be returned when requesting it back.

Thank you Simen and div0.

1. https://github.com/he-the-great/Fused

On 10/11/2010 06:21, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> I have some good news! It works (Simplest test case). I spent several hours trying to track down where my code translation could be causing problems. And have concluded that core.sys.posix.sys.stat.stat_t is not correct for my 32bit Debian Linux machine.
>
> I realize this is a big claim, so I'm going to look into it some more. But to get my code working I moved the getattr function into a C file and called that instead of using it from D. I also noticed that the value set to stat_t.st_mode would not be returned when requesting it back.
>
> Thank you Simen and div0.
>
> 1. https://github.com/he-the-great/Fused
>

Well done, glad you proved me wrong.

It does seem unlikely that size_t is wrong,
though you can test it easily enough:

compile a test C program to see what size it is and compare it to the D version:

void main() {
	printf("sizeof: %d", sizeof(size_t));
}

It should be 4 on a 32 bit system & 8 for 64 bit.

-- 
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk

div0 Wrote:

> Well done, glad you proved me wrong.
> 
> It does seem unlikely that size_t is wrong,
> though you can test it easily enough:
> 
> compile a test C program to see what size it is and compare it to the D version:
> 
> void main() {
> 	printf("sizeof: %d", sizeof(size_t));
> }
> 
> It should be 4 on a 32 bit system & 8 for 64 bit.

Hope I didn't say size_t. stat_t, a very complicated struct known as struct stat in C. I don't know for sure that it is wrong, but at this point it is the most likely candidate.

Also none of the changes I made related to the question affected the ability of the program to work (maybe a more complicated one). Just glad I wasn't to far off in my translation.

On 10/11/2010 20:15, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> div0 Wrote:
>
>> Well done, glad you proved me wrong.
>>
>> It does seem unlikely that size_t is wrong,
>> though you can test it easily enough:
>>
>> compile a test C program to see what size it is and compare it to the D
>> version:
>>
>> void main() {
>> 	printf("sizeof: %d", sizeof(size_t));
>> }
>>
>> It should be 4 on a 32 bit system&  8 for 64 bit.
>
> Hope I didn't say size_t. stat_t, a very complicated struct known as struct stat in C. I don't know for sure that it is wrong, but at this point it is the most likely candidate.
>
> Also none of the changes I made related to the question affected the ability of the program to work (maybe a more complicated one). Just glad I wasn't to far off in my translation.

Sorry, me misreading.

You can still do the size check for the stat_t struct as well,
I always double check the size of structs when doing those conversions as it's very easy to get it wrong.

-- 
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk

div0 Wrote:

> You can still do the size check for the stat_t struct as well,
> I always double check the size of structs when doing those conversions
> as it's very easy to get it wrong.

Ah, good idea. The test I have planned will be to set some values in the D struct, and see what is read by the C struct. The size thing will definitely be a simple give away if it differs.

I might try to use some reflection to see what the structure D creates looks like, so that it will be easier to compare the D code with the C header. (Lots of version statements in the D version, might be some macros in C too.)

On 10/11/2010 21:02, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> div0 Wrote:
>
>> You can still do the size check for the stat_t struct as well,
>> I always double check the size of structs when doing those conversions
>> as it's very easy to get it wrong.
>
> Ah, good idea. The test I have planned will be to set some values in the D struct, and see what is read by the C struct. The size thing will definitely be a simple give away if it differs.
>
> I might try to use some reflection to see what the structure D creates looks like, so that it will be easier to compare the D code with the C header. (Lots of version statements in the D version, might be some macros in C too.)

Also another thing to make life easier, use gcc's only preprocess the file option (-E ?) and save the result. That way you can look at the raw struct after all the CPP macros have been applied/stripped out.

That's very handy with complicated C structs.

-- 
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk