[Neal Norwitz]
It looks like %zd of a negative number is treated as an unsigned
number on OS X, even though the man page says it should be signed.
The z modifier, when applied to a d or i conversion, indicates that
the argument is of a signed type equivalent in size to a size_t.
It's not
On 9/21/06, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, to be strictly anal, while the result of
(size_t)-123
is defined, the result of casting /that/ back to a signed type of the
same width is not defined. Maybe your compiler was doing you a
favor ;-)
I also tried with a cast to an
On Friday, September 22, 2006, at 08:38AM, Neal Norwitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 9/21/06, Tim Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, to be strictly anal, while the result of
(size_t)-123
is defined, the result of casting /that/ back to a signed type of the
same width is not
The python binary is out of step with the test_itertools.py version.
You can generate this same error on your own box by reverting the
change to itertoolsmodule.c but leaving the new test in test_itertools.py
I don't know why this only happened on that OSX buildslave
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The python binary is out of step with the test_itertools.py version.
You can generate this same error on your own box by reverting the
change to itertoolsmodule.c but leaving the new test in test_itertools.py
I don't know why this only
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:28:04PM -0700, Grig Gheorghiu wrote:
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The python binary is out of step with the test_itertools.py version.
You can generate this same error on your own box by reverting the
change to itertoolsmodule.c but leaving
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:28:04PM -0700, Grig Gheorghiu wrote:
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The python binary is out of step with the test_itertools.py version.
You can generate this same error on your own box by
On 9/21/06, Grig Gheorghiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 03:28:04PM -0700, Grig Gheorghiu wrote:
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The python binary is out of step with the test_itertools.py version.
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
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
On 9/21/06, Jack Diederich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
