Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > Why do you say that? If c is -1, then Py_CHARMASK(c) is 255, which is a > positive integer.
What srid seems to be saying is that chars are unsigned on AIX, and therefore Py_CHARMASK() returns -1. Hence his patch proposal. Of course, it is dubious why EOF is not tested separately rather than passing it to Py_ISALNUM(). Micro-optimization? At least a comment should be added. Also, really, the Py_CHARMASK() macro seems poorly specified. It claims to "convert a possibly signed character to a nonnegative int", but this is wrong: it doesn't convert to an int at all. Furthermore, it does a cast in one branch but not in the other, which can give bad surprises as here. ---------- nosy: +pitrou _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9020> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
