Home/ Questions/Q 8593419
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-06-11T23:59:04+00:00

I have a C++ code that implement a special protocol over the serial port.

  • 0

I have a C++ code that implement a special protocol over the serial port. The code is multi-threaded and internally polls the serial port and do its own cyclic processing. I would like to call this driver from erlang and also receive events from this driver. My concern is that this C++ code is multi-threaded and also statefull meaning that when I call a certain function on the driver, it caches things internally which will be used/required on the subsequent calls of the driver. My questions are

1.Does NIF run in the same os process as the rest of my erlang proceses or NIF is launched in a separate os process?

2.Does it make sense to warp this multi-threaded stateful C++ code with NIF?

4.If NIF is not the right approach, what is the better way for me to make Elrang talk back and forth with this C++ code. I also prefer my C++ code to be inside the same OS process as the rest of my Erlang processes and as it looks like linked-in drivers are an option but not sure if the multi-threaded nature of my C++ code will be ok to that model. Plus I hear they can mess up elrang scheduler?

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    1. Unlike ports, NIFs are run within Erlang VM process, similar to drivers. Because of that, any NIF crashes will bring VM down as well. And, answering in advance, to your last question, NIFs, like drivers, may block your scheduler.

    2. That depends on the functionality you are implementing by this C++ code. Due to the answer 1), you probably want to avoid concurrency in the C++ part, since it’s a potential source of errors. It’s not always possible, of course. But if you are implementing, say, some workers pool, go ahead and implement 1-threaded code, spawning it as many times as you need.

    3. Drivers can be multi-threaded too, with same potential problems and quite similar performance (well, still slightly faster than NIFs). If you are not completely sure about your C++ code stability, use it as an Erlang port.

    Speaking of the difference between NIFs and drivers, the former is synchronous natively, and the latter can be asynchronous (which can be really a huge advantage if you don’t want to receive any answers for most of the commands). Drivers are easier to mess up and harder to implement (but once you grasp the main patterns and problems, they seem okay, actually).

    Here’s a good start for drivers:
    http://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/driver.html

    And something similar (behold the difference in complexity) for NIFs:
    http://www.erlang.org/doc/tutorial/nif.html

    • 0