> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis <at> pitrou.net> writes: >> In any case, you seem to be right on this particular point: the PyGC_Head union >> should probably contain a "double" alternative in addition to the "long double" >> (and perhaps even a "long long" one). > > Sorry, I realize that this doesn't really address the point. I don't realize that. Why is your first proposal bad? > In addition to that union, we should also have a particular mechanism to compute > what the proper offset should be between the PyGC_Head and the PyObject. Why is that difficult? It's sizeof(PyGC_Head). Regards, Martin
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