Message305160
| Author |
skrah |
| Recipients |
benjamin.peterson, neologix, njs, pitrou, rhettinger, skrah, tim.peters, trent, vstinner, wscullin, xdegaye |
| Date |
2017年10月28日.12:16:22 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<20171028121612.GA2785@bytereef.org> |
| In-reply-to |
<1509139157.41.0.213398074469.issue18835@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> The ways we've discussed using aligned allocation in numpy wouldn't follow this requirement without special checking. Which isn't necessarily a big deal, and numpy won't necessarily use this API anyway. But I would suggest being very clear about exactly what you guarantee and what you don't :-).
In the GitHub issue we sort of decided to make the more relaxed Posix
semantics official:
'alignment' must be a power of 2 and a multiple of 'sizeof(void *)'.
'size' can be really anything, so it should work for numpy.
It's a pity that Posix does not round up align={1,2,4} to 'sizeof(void *)'
automatically (why not?), so the applications will have to do that. |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2017年10月28日 12:16:23 | skrah | set | recipients:
+ skrah, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, vstinner, benjamin.peterson, trent, njs, neologix, xdegaye, wscullin |
| 2017年10月28日 12:16:23 | skrah | link | issue18835 messages |
| 2017年10月28日 12:16:22 | skrah | create |
|