[Thomas Heller] > I've implemented a 'k' format code for getargs.c, and uploaded a patch > for it http://www.python.org/sf/595026. Cool! Thanks. > This code accepts integers or longs, does no range checking, and > returns the lower bits in an unsigned long. > > Is this also the fix for the hex constant issue which has been > discussed here before? Are extension writers supposed to replace 'i' > with 'k' in the PyArg_Parse calls in their extensions now? > > Then, I'm not sure how to proceed. > > Sure, a 'K' format code, which returns a LONG_LONG will also be needed, > and I can implement that. > > Are the other changes proposed in the SF item (changes to the 'B', > 'H', 'I' codes) needed? I suggest raising all these issues in comments on the patch report instead. > Do I have to add code somewhere to test these format codes or the > Py.._From..Mask functions, probably in testcapi.c? _testcapimodule.c, and yes. Most of that is devoted to ensuring that various range and integer size thingies work across platforms, and, especially if you're mucking with LONG_LONG, the chance of your code working across all 64-bit boxes the first time are close to 0 (unless you've done this often before): if this kind of thing isn't tested, it's broken.
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