On 17.06.2011, at 8:05PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Derek Homeier
> <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
