Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

lmdb: Calling convention does not conform to proposed cgo tool restritions #10

Closed
bmatsuo opened this issue Oct 27, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed
Milestone

Comments

@bmatsuo
Copy link
Owner

bmatsuo commented Oct 27, 2015

Proposal: https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/12416-cgo-pointers.md

C functions that take an MDB_val* are not meeting the restrictions proposed in go#12416. The pointer in the arguments' mv_data field is usually a Go pointer. The infractions should be fixed when the design is finalized and by the time the implementation lands on "tip".

@bmatsuo
Copy link
Owner Author

bmatsuo commented Oct 29, 2015

I new have two branches for different aspects of this issue.

https://github.com/bmatsuo/lmdb-go/tree/bmatsuo/mdb-val-cgo-pointer-restrictions

https://github.com/bmatsuo/lmdb-go/tree/bmatsuo/reader-list-context-fix

I think those address the only issues in package. I'm tempted to merge the latter in without further confirmation because while the underlying implementation is more complex it does clean some stuff up.

(edit: the fix for Env.ReaderList has been merged)

@bmatsuo bmatsuo added this to the Unplanned milestone Nov 2, 2015
bmatsuo added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2015
The cgo argument checker is issuing runtime panics about the use of
MDB_val types.
bmatsuo added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2015
@bmatsuo bmatsuo changed the title Calling convention does not conform to proposed cgo tool restritions lmdb: Calling convention does not conform to proposed cgo tool restritions Nov 17, 2015
@bmatsuo bmatsuo modified the milestones: v1.3.0, Unplanned Nov 17, 2015
wojas added a commit to wojas/lmdb-go that referenced this issue Feb 11, 2022
Fix release numbers in the readme
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant