[Python-Dev] Patch wanted

[Scott David Daniels]

Raymond Hettinger wrote:

>Here's a proposed patch:
>
>--- pyconfig.h  23 Sep 2004 19:11:32 -0000      1.30
>+++ pyconfig.h  15 Oct 2004 02:44:27 -0000
>@@ -273,10 +273,12 @@
>
> /* VC 7.1 has them and VC 6.0 does not.  VC 6.0 has a version number of
>1200.
>    If some compiler does not provide them, modify the #if
>appropriately. */
>-#if _MSC_VER != 1200
>+#if defined(_MSC_VER)
>+#if _MSC_VER > 1200
> #define HAVE_UINTPTR_T 1
> #define HAVE_INTPTR_T 1
>-#endif
>+#endif  /* _MSC_VER > 1200  */
>+#endif  /* _MSC_VER */
>
> #endif
>
>>Ray Hettinger's fix 1.29 to PC/pyconfig.h
>>
> . . .
>
>>His test presumes 
>>
> . . .
>
>Please watch the personalisms.  I'm not the one who broke the build in
>the first place.  Ideally, someone who knows all about the various
>compilers can propose a generic fix so that a lot of the ifdeffery in
>this file can be taken out.  For someone trying to repair a broken
>build, they can often only test in one environment.
>
I'm sorry.  I had no intention to make it sound personal, but I do see
(now) how it does.  I was trying to describe why this patch, that I had
submitted quite some time ago, was important, and how I was not simply
inventing a problem that nobody else did or will encounter.  I understand
you fixed something that was broken (probably on a cramped schedule), and
I was trying to explain that the fix, while successful for VC 6.0 and 7.1,
was likely to be the wrong test.

Please accept my apologies, as I hold your efforts in great esteem.  I was
hoping that by hunting down in the CVS log to where the change went in, I
could figure out where the last change in that area happened.  I hoped
that that person, at least, might be able to review the patch. 

I tried to say everything I knew about why this patch might work, not to
attack the previous patch, but to explain why more change was needed.  I
did my best to determine what the core condition was and propose a
change there. 

I don't, however, have the wherewithal (in particular the compilers) to
test whether my idea of what should work will in fact work.  I can only
test on GCC 2.95 and 3.2.2 and VC 6.0.  I don't have other GCC versions
or the Intel compilers (which, in a more perfect world, should be tested).

>Raymond
>
>Side note:  It looks like I may be the only one testing/maintaining the
>MSVC++6.0 build.  It got broken again this week, so I have to fix it up
>tonight (looks like a minor repair though).
>
-Scott David Daniels
Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org