On 5/29/06, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2006, at 4:31 AM, Thomas Wouters wrote: > > > > I'm seeing a dubious failure of test_gzip and test_tarfile on my > > AMD64 machine. It's triggered by the recent struct changes, but I'd > > say it's probably caused by a bug/misfeature in zlibmodule: > > zlib.crc32 is the result of a zlib 'crc32' functioncall, which > > returns an unsigned long. zlib.crc32 turns that unsigned long into > > a (signed) Python int, which means a number beyond 1<<31 goes > > negative on 32-bit systems and other systems with 32-bit longs, but > > stays positive on systems with 64-bit longs: > > > > (32-bit) > > >>> zlib.crc32("foobabazr") > > -271938108 > > > > (64-bit) > > >>> zlib.crc32("foobabazr") > > 4023029188 > > > > The old structmodule coped with that: > > >>> struct.pack("<l", -271938108) > > '\xc4\x8d\xca\xef' > > >>> struct.pack("<l", 4023029188) > > '\xc4\x8d\xca\xef' > > > > The new one does not: > > >>> struct.pack("<l", -271938108) > > '\xc4\x8d\xca\xef' > > >>> struct.pack("<l", 4023029188) > > Traceback (most recent call last): > > File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module> > > File "Lib/struct.py", line 63, in pack > > return o.pack(*args) > > struct.error: 'l' format requires -2147483647 <= number <= 2147483647 > > > > The structmodule should be fixed (and a test added ;) but I'm also > > wondering if zlib shouldn't be fixed. Now, I'm AMD64-centric, so my > > suggested fix would be to change the PyInt_FromLong() call to > > PyLong_FromUnsignedLong(), making zlib always return positive > > numbers -- it might break some code on 32-bit platforms, but that > > code is already broken on 64-bit platforms. But I guess I'm okay > > with the long being changed into an actual 32-bit signed number on > > 64-bit platforms, too. > > The struct module isn't what's broken here. All of the struct types > have always had well defined bit sizes and alignment if you > explicitly specify an endian, >I and >L are 32-bits everywhere, and > >Q is supported on platforms that don't have long long. The only > thing that's changed is that it actually checks for errors > consistently now. Yes. And that breaks things. I'm certain the behaviour is used in real-world code (and I don't mean just the gzip module.) It has always, as far as I can remember, accepted 'unsigned' values for the signed versions of ints, longs and long-longs (but not chars or shorts.) I agree that that's wrong, but I don't think changing struct to do the right thing should be done in 2.5. I don't even think it should be done in 2.6 -- although 3.0 is fine. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas at python.org> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20060529/3bc0bb68/attachment-0001.html
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