On 17.06.2011, at 8:05PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Derek Homeier > <de...@astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote: >> On 17.06.2011, at 2:02AM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >> >> ok, that was a lengthy hunt, but it's in printing the string in >> >> make_iso_8601_date: >> >> >> >> tmplen = snprintf(substr, sublen, "%04" NPY_INT64_FMT, dts->year); >> >> fprintf(stderr, "printed %d[%d]: dts->year=%lld: %s\n", tmplen, >> >> sublen, dts->year, substr); >> >> >> >> produces >> >> >> >> >>> np.datetime64('1970-03-23 20:00:00Z', 'D') >> >> printed 4[62]: dts->year=1970: 0000 >> >> numpy.datetime64('0000-03-23','D') >> >> >> >> It seems snprintf is not using the correct format for INT64 (as I >> >> happened to do in fprintf before >> >> realising I had to use "%lld" ;-) - could it be this is a general issue, >> >> which just does not show up >> >> on little-endian machines because they happen to pass the right half of >> >> the int64 to printf? >> >> BTW, how is this supposed to be handled (in 4 digits) if the year is >> >> indeed beyond the 32bit range >> >> (i.e. >~ 0.3 Hubble times...)? Just wondering if one could simply cast it >> >> to int32 before print. >> >> >> > I'd prefer to fix the NPY_INT64_FMT macro. There's no point in having it >> > if it doesn't work... What is NumPy setting it to for that platform? >> > >> Of course (just felt somewhat lost among all the #defines). It clearly seems >> to be mis-constructed >> on PowerPC 32: >> NPY_SIZEOF_LONG is 4, thus NPY_INT64_FMT is set to NPY_LONGLONG_FMT - "Ld", >> but this does not seem to handle int64 on big-endian Macs - explicitly >> printing "%Ld", dts->year >> also produces 0. >> Changing the snprintf format to "%04" "lld" produces the correct output, so >> if nothing else >> avails, I suggest to put something like >> >> # elseif (defined(__ppc__) || defined(__ppc64__)) >> #define LONGLONG_FMT "lld" >> #define ULONGLONG_FMT "llu" >> # else >> >> into npy_common.h (or possibly simply "defined(__APPLE__)", since %lld seems >> to >> work on 32bit i386 Macs just as well). >> > Probably a minimally invasive change is best, also this kind of thing > deserves a comment explaining the problem that was encountered with the > specific platforms, so that in the future when people examine this part they > can understand why this is there. Do you want to make a pull request for this > change? > I'd go with the defined(__APPLE__) then, since %Ld produces wrong results on both 32bit platforms. More precisely, this print "%Ld - %Ld", dts->year, dts->year produces "0 - 1970" on ppc and "1970 - 0" on i386, while "%lld - %lld" prints "1970 - 1970" on both archs. There still is an issue (I now remember this came up with a different test a few months ago), that none of the formats seems to be able to actually print numbers > 2**32 (or 2**31, don't remember), but this seemed out of reach for anyone on this list.
Cheers, Derek _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion