On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Pauli Virtanen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2009-07-01, Charles R Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:59 AM, David Cournapeau < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I would like to add an explicit configuration test to check that our > >> complex type is compatible with the C99 complex type (when available). > >> Is this ok? > > Seems OK to me. > > >> As currently defined, complex c types (npy_cfloat, etc...) are not > >> defined in a way such as they are binary compatible with the C99 complex > >> type. Strictly speaking, packing the complex type is an ABI break, but > >> we already make the assumption in ufunc, so we would have wrong > >> results/crashes currently if it were not packed, so I believe the check > > Is there a reason not to pack our complex number struct? I think > if we bump the ABI version, changing this should be OK. >
This bothers me a bit. Since the two forms should normally be compatible maybe we can use a union or some other way to preserve the current ABI. It would be nice to have a deprecation warning too, but I can't figure out how to deprecate a struct declaration. A compiler warning perhaps? Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
