a) hope this is not something you expect to be on -list, if so - my
apologies!
Getting this message (here using c99 as compiler name, but same issue
with xlc as compiler name)
c99 -qarch=pwr4 -qbitfields=signed -DNDEBUG -O -I. -IInclude -I./Include
-I/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Include
-I/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2 -c
/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c
-o
build/temp.aix-5.3-2.7/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.o
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field M must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field N must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field O must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field P must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field Q must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field R must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field S must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
for:
struct BITS {
int A: 1, B:2, C:3, D:4, E: 5, F: 6, G: 7, H: 8, I: 9;
short M: 1, N: 2, O: 3, P: 4, Q: 5, R: 6, S: 7;
};
in short xlC v11 does not like short (xlC v7 might have accepted it, but
"32-bit machines were common then". I am guessing that 16-bit is not
well liked on 64-bit hw now.
reference for xlC v7, where short was (apparently) still accepted:
http://www.serc.iisc.ernet.in/facilities/ComputingFacilities/systems/cluster/vac-7.0/html/language/ref/clrc03defbitf.htm
I am taking this is from xlC v7 documentation from the URL, not because
I know it personally.
So - my question: if "short" is unacceptable for POWER, or maybe only
xlC (not tried with gcc) - how terrible is this, and is it possible to
adjust the test so - the test is accurate?
I am going to modify the test code so it is
struct BITS {
signed int A: 1, B:2, C:3, D:4, E: 5, F: 6, G: 7, H: 8, I: 9;
unsigned int M: 1, N: 2, O: 3, P: 4, Q: 5, R: 6, S: 7;
};
And see what happens - BUT - what does this have for impact on python -
assuming that "short" bitfields are not supported?
p.s. not submitting this a bug (now) as it may just be that "you"
consider it a bug in xlC to not support (signed) short bit fields.
p.p.s. Note: xlc, by default, considers bitfields to be unsigned. I was
trying to force them to signed with -qbitfields=signed - and I still got
messages. So, going back to defaults.
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
