Roman Yakovenko <roman.yakove...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Roman Yakovenko
> <roman.yakove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Nikolaus Rath <nikol...@rath.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for looking into this. I'm afraid the fix for the CFUNCTYPE vs
>>> POINTER(CFUNCTYPE) issue is not completely working though.
>>>
>>> The small testcase that I send around indeed generates correct code with the
>>> new version. However, if you try the same code on a more complex header
>>> (like the attached one, needs fuse headers to be installed) it still
>>> produces the wrong result:
>>>
>>>
>>> fuse_lowlevel_ops._fields_ = [ #class fuse_lowlevel_ops
>>> ("init", ctypes.POINTER( ctypes.CFUNCTYPE( None, ctypes.c_void_p,
>>> ctypes.POINTER( fuse_conn_info ) ) )),
>>> ("destroy", ctypes.POINTER( ctypes.CFUNCTYPE( None, ctypes.c_void_p
>>> ) )),
>>> [...]
>>
>> :-(. I will take a look on this today.
>
> Nikolaus, unfortunately I can't reproduce the error. I attached the
> generated file and the "source" file.
>
> Can you investigate a little bit more?
You are right. The reason why it didn't work for me at first was the
monkeypatching that I did to get POINTER(c_char) instead of c_char_p.
Luckily enough, with your other commit I don't need that patching
anymore either. Thanks again!
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
_______________________________________________
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
