Message171016
| Author |
loewis |
| Recipients |
amaury.forgeotdarc, asvetlov, eric.smith, larry, loewis, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, pitrou, rhettinger, sdaoden, serhiy.storchaka, stutzbach, vstinner, xuanji |
| Date |
2012年09月22日.22:44:44 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20120923004444.Horde.NxBbTcL8999QXj9cHmuCiqA@webmail.df.eu> |
| In-reply-to |
<201209221950.56855.storchaka@gmail.com> |
| Content |
Zitat von Serhiy Storchaka <report@bugs.python.org>:
>> I recommend to close the issue as rejected.
>
> I think _PyLong_IS_SMALL_INT can be rewritten in a safe style. For
> example, using a checking of several fields
> ((sdigit)(x)->ob_digit[0] < _MAX_SMALL_INT && PySIZE(x) <= 1) or a
> special flag. It is possible however that shuch checking will fully
> destroy the effect of optimization. We need further research.
Do we need to keep this issue open while this research is being carried
out? This issue is already cluttered with the undefined-behavior discussion. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年09月22日 22:44:45 | loewis | set | recipients:
+ loewis, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, larry, eric.smith, stutzbach, asvetlov, meador.inge, xuanji, sdaoden, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2012年09月22日 22:44:44 | loewis | link | issue10044 messages |
| 2012年09月22日 22:44:44 | loewis | create |
|