➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author loewis
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, asvetlov, eric.smith, larry, loewis, mark.dickinson, meador.inge, pitrou, rhettinger, sdaoden, serhiy.storchaka, stutzbach, vstinner, xuanji
Date 2012-09-22.22:44:44
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
2012-09-22 22:44:45loewissetrecipients: + loewis, rhettinger, amaury.forgeotdarc, mark.dickinson, pitrou, vstinner, larry, eric.smith, stutzbach, asvetlov, meador.inge, xuanji, sdaoden, serhiy.storchaka
2012-09-22 22:44:44loewislinkissue10044 messages
2012-09-22 22:44:44loewiscreate