Terry Reedy wrote: > Three days after you posted, 'gagenellina' explained that he thought your > complaint was invalid. > "py> -531560245 & 0xffffffff > 3763407051L > > It's the same number (actually, the same bit pattern). ..." > > A few weeks later, noticing that you had not challenged his explanation, I > closed after changing the Resolution box to Invalid. THAT WAS MY COMMENT. > > A month later, I notice that you still have not directly challenged G's > claim of invalidity. Instead, you ignored it and simply repeated your > claim here. WHO IS IGNORING WHO? > ... > Real bug reports are quite welcome, as any honest person could determine by > looking thru the tracker.
Hi Terry, I understand and agree that the number was the same bit pattern. I don't remember being asked to challenge this. I must have missed the status change notification. I do wonder whether the diagnosis is accurate: is the sparc64 port actually using an unsigned int where the i386 port is using a signed int? Either way, I don't see how it reflects on the validity of the report. I reported that the resulting numbers were different. To me that seems a trap for the unwary. All I saw was a comment on what might cause my problem, and then I saw that the problem report was closed. Now I am told that I didn't even file a real bug report. I don't know whether to take that as "this is a trivial problem not worth reporting" or "this is a poorly filed bug report". I am an honest person, honestly! Ben -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
