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 fil
Recipients fil
Date 2013-12-06.02:04:22
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
I've been looking at adding 128-bit support to the struct module. Currently only named integer types are supported, which vary in implementation. These include:

long long

Depending on the platform, none may translate to 128-bit integer (the case with all platforms today?).

One approach would be to make a new type that relates specifically to 128-bit integer, side-stepping the naming approaches to integer in C.

The other, would be to make new types for all integer sizes that relate to specific sizes, instead of relying on C namings. Much bigger implications?

I propose creating new types:

"o": __int128_t
"O": __uint128_t
"t": __int256_t (why not?)
"T": __uint256_t
"v": __int512_t (what, too far?)
"V": __int512_t

What implications are there here in killing the connection between a C named type and a specific size?
Date User Action Args
2013-12-06 02:04:23filsetrecipients: + fil
2013-12-06 02:04:23filsetmessageid: <>
2013-12-06 02:04:22fillinkissue19904 messages
2013-12-06 02:04:22filcreate