Port driver memory free

[Casper]

Only difference is call use external term format, so need to use
driver_alloc, but control doesn't so use driver_alloc_binary, Correct?

- Eranga


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED
[mailto:owner-erlang-questions@REDACTED] On Behalf Of Casper
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 5:03 PM
To: 'Vance Shipley'
Cc: erlang-questions@REDACTED; raimo@REDACTED
Subject: RE: Port driver memory free

Vance,

Regarding port_call and port_control, I think both can use ei library
functions to encode/decode terms, correct? If not, please advice how they've
being done.

I am sorry if I did something offending. But to my understanding the code I
published only carries a very generic Erlang-C port code. Even on the Erlang
manuals or samples, the same method is shown.

Thanks!
- Eranga




-----Original Message-----
From: Vance Shipley [mailto:vances@REDACTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 10:44 AM
To: casper2000a@REDACTED
Cc: erlang-questions@REDACTED; raimo@REDACTED
Subject: Re: Port driver memory free

Eranga,

Your problem is that you have copied my (copyrighted) code written
for use with erlang:port_call/3 and reused it with erlang:port_control/3.
The difference between the two is that port_call/3 uses the external 
term format as encoded by the ei library while port_control/3 uses the
driver binary format.

	-Vance


Motivity Telecom Inc.
+1 519 240 3684
vances@REDACTED