On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Trent Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Windows x64, sizeof(size_t) > sizeof(long), so the existing
> PyLong_FromSsize_t and PyLong_FromSize_t implementations in longobject.c are
> just plain wrong. I've patched it as follows, but as I'm not well versed in
> the many intricacies of longobject.c, I'd appreciate input from others.
>
I'm missing something: in what way are the existing implementations
wrong? I see that the test (ival < PyLong_BASE) in
PyLong_FromSsize_t should be something like:
(ival < PyLong_BASE && ival > -PyLong_BASE), but
PyLong_FromSize_t looks okay to me. (Apart from the
unused "int one = 1;", that is.)
I agree that it's a little odd to go via _PyLong_FromByteArray.
Couldn't PyLong_FromSsize_t be written to exactly mimic
PyLong_FromLongLong? It means duplication of code, I know,
but it also means not relying on ssize_t being equal to either
long or long long.
By the way, I don't much like the handling of negative
values in PyLong_FromLong and PyLong_FromLongLong:
these functions use code like:
if (ival < 0) {
ival = -ival;
negative = 1;
}
which looks to me as though it might mishandle the case
where ival = LONG_MIN. Should this be fixed?
Mark
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
