> Antoine Pitrou <solipsis <at> pitrou.net> writes: >> In any case, you seem to be right on this particular point: the PyGC_Head >> union >> should probably contain a "double" alternative in addition to the "long >> double" >> (and perhaps even a "long long" one). > > Sorry, I realize that this doesn't really address the point.
I don't realize that. Why is your first proposal bad? > In addition to that union, we should also have a particular mechanism to > compute > what the proper offset should be between the PyGC_Head and the PyObject. Why is that difficult? It's sizeof(PyGC_Head). Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
