Meador Inge added the comment:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Serhiy Storchaka <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> Serhiy, I didn't analyze it too in depth, but why aren't the test cases
>> using the __sizeof__ support work you implemented for issue15467? I think
>> these tests should be using the more exact method like your other
>> '__sizeof__' patches.
>
> Because struct has not codes for Py_off_t and PyThread_type_lock.
Of course it doesn't -- those are Python specific typedefs.
'PyThread_type_lock'
is just a typedef to 'void *' and something could be figured out for 'Py_off_t'
in the support code.
Anyway, the way you are implementing the tests has the same issue as Martin
pointed
out for the 'object.__sizeof__' method in issue15402. I could replace the
'buffered_sizeof' implementation with:
static PyObject *
buffered_sizeof(buffered *self, void *unused)
{
Py_ssize_t res;
res = 1;
if (self->buffer)
res += self->buffer_size;
return PyLong_FromSsize_t(res);
}
and the tests will still pass.
----------
nosy: +loewis
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue15487>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
