On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 06:09:41AM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > Jack Diederich schrieb: > > Faced with the choice of believing in a really strange platform specific > > bug in a commonly used routine that resulted in exactly the failure caused > > by one of the two files being updated or believing a failure occurred in the > > long chain of networks, disks, file systems, build tools, and operating > > systems that would result in only one of the files being updated - > > I went with the latter. > > Please reconsider how subversion works. It has the notion of atomic > commits, so you either get the entire change, or none at all. > > Fortunately, the buildbot keeps logs of everything it does: > > http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/trunk/g4%20osx.4%20trunk/builds/1449/step-svn/0 > > shows > > U Lib/test/test_itertools.py > U Modules/itertoolsmodule.c > Updated to revision 51950. > > So it said it updated both files. But perhaps it didn't build them? > Let's check: > > > http://www.python.org/dev/buildbot/trunk/g4%20osx.4%20trunk/builds/1449/step-compile/0 > > has this: > > building 'itertools' extension > > gcc -fno-strict-aliasing -Wno-long-double -no-cpp-precomp > -mno-fused-madd -g -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -I. > -I/Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build/./Include > -I/Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build/./Mac/Include -I./Include -I. > -I/usr/local/include -I/Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build/Include > -I/Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build -c > /Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build/Modules/itertoolsmodule.c -o > build/temp.macosx-10.3-ppc-2.6/Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build/Modules/itertoolsmodule.o > > gcc -bundle -undefined dynamic_lookup > build/temp.macosx-10.3-ppc-2.6/Users/buildslave/bb/trunk.psf-g4/build/Modules/itertoolsmodule.o > -L/usr/local/lib -o build/lib.macosx-10.3-ppc-2.6/itertools.so > > So itertools.so is regenerated, as it should; qed. >
I should leave the tounge-in-cheek bombast to Tim and Frederik, especially when dealing with what might be an OS & machine specific bug. The next checkin and re-test will or won't highlight a failure and certainly someone with a g4 will try it out before 2.5.1 goes out so we'll know if it was a fluke soonish. The original error was mine, I typed "Size_t" instead of "Ssize_t" and while my one-char patch might also be wrong (I hope not, I'm red-faced enough as is) we should find out soon enough. -Jack _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
