> "libc.stdint.int64_t" is hand-wavingly declared as "long"
There are some deeper issues in the rest of your message, but as a
preliminary matter, isn't this a clear error for linux-32 and windows?
-Robert
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:30 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert McGibbon schrieb am 01.0
Robert McGibbon schrieb am 02.07.2015 um 09:49:
>> "libc.stdint.int64_t" is hand-wavingly declared as "long"
>
> There are some deeper issues in the rest of your message, but as a
> preliminary matter, isn't this a clear error for linux-32 and windows?
No, it's not. That's just what Cython sees.
Right, okay. I think I understand.
-Robert
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Robert McGibbon schrieb am 02.07.2015 um 09:49:
> >> "libc.stdint.int64_t" is hand-wavingly declared as "long"
> >
> > There are some deeper issues in the rest of your message, but as a
> > prelim
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM Robert McGibbon wrote:
> Right, okay. I think I understand.
>
> -Robert
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Stefan Behnel
> wrote:
>
>> Robert McGibbon schrieb am 02.07.2015 um 09:49:
>> >> "libc.stdint.int64_t" is hand-wavingly declared as "long"
>> >
>> > There
Thank you very much Stefan.
I have just read the ticket, and it seems that Guido van Rossum consider
this to be a feature, not a bug (???), so I guess they won't fix it.
For me it would be a nice plus to have this problem fixed, but I can live
with my current workaround, so I'm not sure if Cython
I've fixed this particular case by making our integer ranking more
consistent: signedness is ignored for anything but chars and typedefs
are always preferred (as a last tiebreaker) over non-typedefs (rather
than arbitrarily picking the first or second argument).
https://github.com/cython/cython/com
To clarify, any choice of int64_t + unsigned long will be wrong on one
platform or the others, but getting the wrong sign seems preferable to
getting the wrong number of bits.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:45 PM, Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> I've fixed this particular case by making our integer ranking mo
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 9:50 PM Robert Bradshaw
wrote:
> To clarify, any choice of int64_t + unsigned long will be wrong on one
> platform or the others, but getting the wrong sign seems preferable to
> getting the wrong number of bits.
>
That makes sens. Thanks for looking at it!
-Ian Henriksen
Very informative discussion. I see that Cython doesn't actually know the
underlying types of typedefs because it doesn't parse any C headers.
Cython doesn't even care about the exact length of the underlying type,
just that it can order the types by rank to find which of two types is
widest. Wh
David Vierra schrieb am 03.07.2015 um 02:26:
> I see that Cython doesn't actually know the
> underlying types of typedefs because it doesn't parse any C headers.
And even if it did parse header files, it still wouldn't know the
properties of the underlying types because they are platform specific
10 matches
Mail list logo
