On 15.04.2019 11:44, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 11:34:01AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 12.04.2019 11:28, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:07:23AM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>> This is nonsense. We should replace the single use of
>>>> SVN_APR_INT64_T_PYCFMT in swigutil_py.c with "L" and cast to
>>>> PY_LONG_LONG and be done with it. Such checks will always have failing
>>>> edge cases, so let's just get rid of them.
>>> Agreed. See https://svn.apache.org/r1857391 Does this look good?
>> Better. Except that, IIRC, PY_LONG_LONG might not be defined on some
>> platform/compiler combinations.
> Comments in python's own header files suggest that PY_LONG_LONG will work
> with C compilers which support a 'long long' type. This isn't C89 but I
> would say this a safe assumption for all compilers we intend to support
> going forward, isn't it? In any case, our code base already relies on
> 'long long' types in other places, e.g. swig bindings and lz4.
Ack. That was my basically my point.
Received on 2019-04-15 12:53:56 CEST