Martin Panter added the comment:
Michael: When posting to the bug tracker, please trim irrelevant parts of old
messages. It makes it hard to see if you actually added anything new.
> [Me] If your compiler does not support “signed short” bitfields, maybe we
> just have to accept that ctypes supports it even though the compiler doesn’t,
> and skip the test.
Proper support for “signed short” according to standard C I guess would mean if
you define
struct BITS {
signed short M: 1;
} b;
b.M = -1;
then reading back b.M gives -1. However I realized test_bitfields tests
overflowing values rather than negative values. In any case, I think we have
established that neither of these cases work with XLC.
I haven’t changed the signed int A–I fields yet. That was part of my patch. I
was waiting for confirmation about the __xlC__ check, before committing the
whole thing.
Eric: I proposed to conditionally skip the test; see
disable-signed-short.patch. Since many other compilers apparently pass the test
and support signed short, we should probably keep the test.
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue27643>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
