Message188243
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Devin Jeanpierre, mark.dickinson, skrah, vstinner |
| Date | 2013-05-01.21:09:03 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1367442544.15.0.0315249902469.issue17884@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Ok, I think I understood the issue :-) The problem is when the uint32_t type is present but is not exactly 32-bit width. When using uint32_t, *I* expect that an array of uint32_t items will takes 4 x n bytes. In which case is it interesting to use an uint32_t which may be bigger? If there is an use case (speed maybe?), we should define a Py_uint32_t which is always present and always exaclty 32 bits. If there is no use case (ex: int_fast32_t or int_least32_t can be used instead), it is maybe better to replace the available type using a #define to use the expect type. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-05-01 21:09:04 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, mark.dickinson, Devin Jeanpierre, skrah |
| 2013-05-01 21:09:04 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1367442544.15.0.0315249902469.issue17884@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-05-01 21:09:04 | vstinner | link | issue17884 messages |
| 2013-05-01 21:09:03 | vstinner | create | |