> As Alice would say, "curiouser and curiouser". Just when I think I've
> figured out the reason for one bit of bizarreness, you find another. :-)
I think the current code works on all my systems.
> What's the breakdown in the 32-bit NetBSD case? One would hope that the
> payload is 64+32 a
Yo Hal!
On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 17:32:31 -0800
Hal Murray via devel wrote:
> > As Alice would say, "curiouser and curiouser". Just when I think
> > I've figured out the reason for one bit of bizarreness, you find
> > another. :-)
>
> I think the current code works on all my systems.
That's a s
>> I have no objections to cleaning up the code so that the NTP_SIZEOF
>> stuff isn't needed. I like your LAST_time_t example.
> Do you want me to fix the other similar case and make it an MR?
If you want me to review or test, sure make it an MR. If you you can test
well enough, just push it.
>>> Oh, now I have context. The only extra code for cross builds would
>>> be the --march. When you use --march then /usr/include/sys may not
>>> be used for . cc swaps sys directory to one approriate
>>> to the target.
>> Are you sure of that?
> 100%
I don't have a cross build setup work
>> It didn't know what a struct timeval was.
> Did you set the required defines first?
I don't think I have to set anything.
> Any place I can go to see the BSD man page
> and the include file contents?
I got the man page via google: freebsd man timespec
Google found their source code on git
Yo Hal!
On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 01:04:55 -0800
Hal Murray wrote:
> I don't have a cross build setup working yet.
And when you do, keeping it running is even harder.
> It looks to me like the CI stuff uses the same headers from
> /usr/include/. Looking in the header files, they are doing a lot of
>
Yo Hal!
On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:40:57 -0800
Hal Murray wrote:
> >> It didn't know what a struct timeval was.
> > Did you set the required defines first?
>
> I don't think I have to set anything.
At least on gentoo you do. Because you bypassed the #defines in time.h
that are set by --march
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025, Richard Laager via devel wrote:
On 2025-02-03 23:31, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
Did you see my comment about how dropping Python 2 before getting rid of
the polyXXX wrapers is dangerous, because removing the wrappers without
properly fixing the underlying code is more like
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025, Hal Murray via devel wrote:
Linux:
x86-64:16
I don't have any really really old systems.
x86-32: 8
Debien, 6.1.0-29-686-pae i686
Arm: 8
Arm64: 16
FreeBSD:
x86-64: 20 <===
x86-32: 8
Arm: 16
Arm64: 20 <===
NetBSD:
x86-64: 20 <===
x86-32: 12
Arm: 20 <
Yo Fred!
On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 14:55:30 -0800 (PST)
Fred Wright via devel wrote:
> If you refactor the
> underlying code to conform to the Python 3 philosophy of treating
> text and binary data as different data types, then you have code that
> works in Python 3 *and Python 2* without the wrappers.
10 matches
Mail list logo
