Stefan Krah <stefan-use...@bytereef.org> added the comment: Mark Dickinson <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > Well, they're all in the standard, which is publicly available.
I have the real thing. :) > The correctness of the patch depends on: > (2) an assumption that the C implementation will never raise an > 'implementation-defined' signal (C99 6.3.1.3p3). This seems > reasonable: I'm fairly sure that this provision is there mainly > for systems using ones' complement or sign-magnitude > representations for signed integers, and it's safe to assume > that Python won't meet such systems. This is what I was concerned about, but the assumption seems safe. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue12973> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
