On Feb 5, 2010, at 4:40 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > 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.
OK, sounds good. We had to mess with Foo[int] being a type as well. I differed buffer vs. type resolution 'till after the parsing phase. - Robert _______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
