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 w
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 ca
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 10:23:54PM -0700, Neal Norwitz wrote:
> 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-tes
[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.
> "
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 wi
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 bel
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 syst
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_iterto
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
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
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
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 02:34
12 matches
Mail list logo
