Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Me and Kurt's been talking about (finally) getting the memory views
>>>> merged. Initially I held back because I wanted to do my part of the
>>>> job
>>>> first (support indexing, currently they only support raw buffer
>>>> access
>>>> and copying), but in the light of how long that's been taking me
>>>> it's
>>>> better to get things merged now -- especially as Kurt has a use for
>>>> the
>>>> existing functionality in fwrap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think we should probably be merging this stuff, but just to confirm
>>> what I'm reading below, it's all new stuff (not changing or breaking
>>> what's there, right)?
>>>
>>>
>> Yep, new stuff (so people shouldn't notice it being there, modulo
>> any bugs).
>>
>
> Does this mean you've re-worked a lot of the buffer code under the
> hood then? (At least we have decent tests, but how confident are you
> that there aren't new bugs for existing code?)
>
No (so there's some degree of overlap and two parallell implementations
now -- I expect this to overlap to gradually grow, and then disappear as
the new buffer implementation is stabilized and we just transform the
old buffer cases to the new one in a transform).
The most likely place for bugs is the parser; i.e. we had to muck with
cdef extern from *:
cdef int foo(int[])
vs.
cdef extern from *:
cdef int foo(int[:])
(or something like it -- don't remember whether we actually decided to
support the latter, or if we require a dummy variable name). That stuff
has caused trouble earlier. But we haven't found any problems with it so
far and the test suite works OK. I honestly don't expect anything of the
sort that the testcases wouldn't have picked up already.
Dag Sverre
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
