On Jan 31, 2008 10:49 AM, James Philbin <philbinj@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, i've digged around in the source code and here is a patch which makes it work for the case I wanted:
--- multiarraymodule.c.old 2008-01-31 17:42:32.000000000 +0000 +++ multiarraymodule.c 2008-01-31 17:43:43.000000000 +0000 @@ -2967,7 +2967,10 @@ char *parr = arr->data; char *pkey = key->data; intp *pret = (intp *)ret->data; - int elsize = arr->descr->elsize; + + int elsize1 = arr->descr->elsize; + int elsize2 = key->descr->elsize; + intp i;
for(i = 0; i < nkeys; ++i) { @@ -2975,14 +2978,14 @@ intp imax = nelts; while (imin < imax) { intp imid = imin + ((imax - imin) >> 2); - if (compare(parr + elsize*imid, pkey, key) < 0) + if (compare(parr + elsize1*imid, pkey, key) < 0) imin = imid + 1; else imax = imid; } *pret = imin; pret += 1; - pkey += elsize; + pkey += elsize2; } }
But is that safe? You have changed the stepping to adjust for the element size, but there is no guarantee that the comparison works. Chuck