[Numpy-discussion] Changeset 6557

[Charles R Harris]

On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM, David Cournapeau <cournape at gmail.com>wrote:
<snip>


> That's strange - I redid the compilation this morning, and I now get
> the same results as you (modulo the function call - I forced the
> function call because that's how it would work in numpy), that is the
> return value is builtin at compile time:
>
>        .text
>        .align 4,0x90
> .globl _order
> _order:
>        pushl   %ebp
>        movl    $1, %eax
>        movl    %esp, %ebp
>        leave
>        ret
>        .subsections_via_symbols
>
> And even simpler on ppc:
>
>        .section __TEXT,__text,regular,pure_instructions
>        .section __TEXT,__picsymbolstub1,symbol_stubs,pure_instructions,32
>        .machine ppc7400
>        .text
>        .align 2
>        .p2align 4,,15
>        .globl _order
> _order:
>        li r3,0
>        blr
>        .subsections_via_symbols
>
> I don't know what I did wrong yesterday. It almost look like I did not
> set the optimization flag, but I can't have been that stupid, can I :)
>

I know the feeling <theremin plays in the background>. Anyway, I went ahead
and made the change and put everything into the PyArray_GetEndianess
function. Was there a reason you split it up?

Apropos the release: I've finished most of the stuff I wanted to finish, the
rest of the coding style cleanups can wait. So it's off to look at the
tickets and trying to fix bugs. Urrgh. Oh, and I suppose I should look into
the argmax/argmin functions and see how they handle nans.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20090307/c54ae6aa/attachment.html>