[Python-Dev] sizeof(long) != sizeof(void*)
Martin v. Löwis
martin at v.loewis.de
Tue Aug 5 21:46:25 EDT 2003
"Tim Peters" <tim.one at comcast.net> writes:
> Ah! You must mean this line in test_buffer_info():
> self.assert_(isinstance(bi, int))
That's what I meant, indeed.
> > Likewise, test_descr expects that id() and hash() return the same value by
> > default.
> Sorry, I couldn't follow that one. Like, the id() and hash() of what?
> Certainly nobody expects, e.g., that hash("xyz") == id("xyz").
I mean this:
# Test the default behavior for static classes
def __getitem__(self, i):
if 0 <= i < 10: return i
c1 = C()
> > Is that a bug in the Win64 port, or in the tests?
> I don't understand what problem(s) you're seeing -- showing tracebacks is
> always more useful than trying to paraphrase in English.
Certainly, yes. Unfortunately, I don't have access to my Email account
at the same computer I have access to a Win64 machine, so I thought
paraphrasing might be sufficient - and indeed, in one case, you were
The third case is one of repr() failing, where it puts a "foo object
at ABCDEFL" in one place, and "foo object at abcdef" in the other,
for the test case
i3 = ClassWithFailingRepr()
eq(r(i3), ("<ClassWithFailingRepr instance at %x>"%id(i3)))
> Trent Mick did the Win64 port, and I believe all tests passed at the
> time he finished that. 'Twas quite a while ago, though, and I don't
> of anyone running tests on Win64 since then. Still, because they
> used to pass, I expect any problems that may exist now are shallow.
I feel this is deeper: Should there be a guarantee that the type used
to represent <type 'integer'> is large enough to hold a void*, or not?
You seem to think that Python should make no such guarantee, which
would then indicate that three of the four failing tests are broken
(I'm uncertain about test_queue at the moment).
More information about the Python-Dev