Well, I can't check it in, so assigning it back to me would be fairly pointless. Someone should also chime in on the Tools/perfecthash stuff as well. If we want to keep it, I'll see if I can come up with an example using Python's tokens since the data set is way smaller. :) Bill -----Original Message----- From: 'Trent Mick' [mailto:trentm@activestate.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 3:55 PM To: Bill Tutt Cc: Jeremy Hylton; M . -A . Lemburg; Mark Favas; Fredrik Lundh; python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] is this obselete?: [Patch #100888] Fix UCNs mach ine with >= 32bit longs On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 12:08:57PM -0700, Bill Tutt wrote: > Well, Fredrik's changes aren't checked in yet, so checking it all in doesn't > hurt. > > The other relevant question is since Fredrik's code will eventually get in, > do we want to yank the code that generates it? > (Tools/perfecthash) If we keep it, then that part of the patch should go in. > If we don't keep it, that's fine too. > > You'd need to test it on Linux64. Win64's integer types are 32bits, and the > C code doesn't use long longs. > The easiest way of testing it of course is to apply the ucnhash.c patch to > your tree and run test_ucn.py. :) Okay. I tried it and with the patch test_ucn.py passes fine. I am going to add a comment to the patch on SourceForge and then assigned it back to.... hmmmm... eenie meenie minie... Bill! Is that alright? Trent -- Trent Mick TrentM@ActiveState.com
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4