Does Clang also fail to compile this? Clang was updated from 1.6 to 2.0 with Xcode 4, worth a try.

clang indeed works fine.

Also, from your version listing it seems to be llvm-gcc (gcc frontend with llvm backend I think), is there no more straight gcc (with gcc frontend and backend)?

/usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/gcc both link to llvm-gcc-4.2. However, there still is /usr/bin/gcc-4.2. Using that, Python also compiles correctly - so I have changed the gcc link on my system. Thanks for the advise - I didn't expect that Apple ships thhree compilers... Regards, Martin

In article <74F6ADFA-874D-4BAC-B304-CE8B12D80126@masklinn.net>, Xavier Morel wrote:

On 2011-09-28, at 19:49 , Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

Thanks for the advise - I didn't expect that Apple ships thhree compilersŠ

Yeah I can understand that, they're in the middle of the transition but Clang is not quite there yet so...

BTW, at the moment, we are still using gcc-4.2 (not gcc-llvm nor clang) from Xcode 3 on OS X 10.6 for the 64-bit/32-bit installer builds and gcc-4.0 on 10.5 for the 32-bit-only installer builds. We will probably revisit that as we get closer to 3.3 alphas and betas. -- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org

In article , Guido van Rossum wrote:

Is anyone on this thread interested in other weird Mac bugs? I had a user complaining that on their Mac, with Python 2.5.6 from macports, 2**63 was a negative number! That sounds like a compiler bug to me...

http://code.google.com/p/appengine-ndb-experiment/issues/detail?id=65 (details about the versions involved are in comment 6)

Thanks for the pointer. That looks like a duplicate of Issue11149 (and Issue12701). Another manifestation of this was reported in Issue13061 which also originated from MacPorts. I'll remind them that the configure change is likely needed for all Pythons. It's still safest to stick with good old gcc-4.2 on OS X at the moment. -- Ned Deily, nad@acm.org