Rationale behind removal of DynLexPad dynpmc, OpenGL and SDL bindings

[Gerhard R.]

> rakudo threw away our libffi binding because [...]
> if parrot throws away the ffi binding for no apparent reason [...]

I never proposed removing libffi bindings. Libffi would be a
'vm-level' linrary and can be kept around if so desired. I'm talking
about 'user-level' bindings realized via static NCI thunks.

> again technical concerns:
> our lexpad works, rakudos lexpad is broken with threads.
>
> your solution: throw away the ones which works.

You're missing my point: Currently, the LexPad basically boxes a
LexInfo pointer. There's no reason to use a whole PMC for that - move
it into the CallContext and you can get rid of a substantial amount of
allocations.

Thread-safety is orthogonal to that.

-- gerdr