➜

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 martin.panter
Recipients Michael.Felt, aixtools@gmail.com, ericvw, martin.panter
Date 2016-08-22.23:06:29
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1471907189.78.0.945041655419.issue27643@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content 
Now I am confused. In <https://bugs.python.org/issue27643#msg271773> we have

[Me] If your compiler does not support “signed short” bitfields, maybe we just have to accept that ctypes supports it even though the compiler doesn’t, and skip the test.

[Michael] Looks like this may be the approach: as signed int, signed short give the same message - it seems that xlc (and maybe Sun C) does not accept "short" as a bitfield type.

Apparently XLC doesn’t accept signed short bitfields for Michael, but does for Eric. What’s going on? Maybe different versions?
History
Date User Action Args
2016-08-22 23:06:29martin.pantersetrecipients: + martin.panter, ericvw, Michael.Felt, aixtools@gmail.com
2016-08-22 23:06:29martin.pantersetmessageid: <1471907189.78.0.945041655419.issue27643@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2016-08-22 23:06:29martin.panterlinkissue27643 messages
2016-08-22 23:06:29martin.pantercreate