test_short fails om AIX when using xlC in any case. How terrible is this?
======================================================================
FAIL: test_shorts (ctypes.test.test_bitfields.C_Test)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Lib/ctypes/test/test_bitfields.py",
line 48, in test_shorts
self.assertEqual((name, i, getattr(b, name)), (name, i,
func(byref(b), name)))
AssertionError: Tuples differ: ('M', 1, -1) != ('M', 1, 1)
First differing element 2:
-1
1
- ('M', 1, -1)
? -
+ ('M', 1, 1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 440 tests in 1.538s
FAILED (failures=1, skipped=91)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "./Lib/test/test_ctypes.py", line 15, in <module>
test_main()
File "./Lib/test/test_ctypes.py", line 12, in test_main
run_unittest(unittest.TestSuite(suites))
File
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Lib/test/test_support.py",
line 1428, in run_unittest
_run_suite(suite)
File
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Lib/test/test_support.py",
line 1411, in _run_suite
raise TestFailed(err)
test.test_support.TestFailed: Traceback (most recent call last):
File
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Lib/ctypes/test/test_bitfields.py",
line 48, in test_shorts
self.assertEqual((name, i, getattr(b, name)), (name, i,
func(byref(b), name)))
AssertionError: Tuples differ: ('M', 1, -1) != ('M', 1, 1)
First differing element 2:
-1
1
- ('M', 1, -1)
? -
+ ('M', 1, 1)
On 17-Mar-16 23:31, Michael Felt wrote:
a) hope this is not something you expect to be on -list, if so - my
apologies!
Getting this message (here using c99 as compiler name, but same issue
with xlc as compiler name)
c99 -qarch=pwr4 -qbitfields=signed -DNDEBUG -O -I. -IInclude
-I./Include -I/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Include
-I/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2 -c
/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c
-o
build/temp.aix-5.3-2.7/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.o
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field M must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field N must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field O must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field P must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field Q must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field R must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
"/data/prj/aixtools/python/python-2.7.11.2/Modules/_ctypes/_ctypes_test.c",
line 387.5: 1506-009 (S) Bit field S must be of type signed int,
unsigned int or int.
for:
struct BITS {
int A: 1, B:2, C:3, D:4, E: 5, F: 6, G: 7, H: 8, I: 9;
short M: 1, N: 2, O: 3, P: 4, Q: 5, R: 6, S: 7;
};
in short xlC v11 does not like short (xlC v7 might have accepted it,
but "32-bit machines were common then". I am guessing that 16-bit is
not well liked on 64-bit hw now.
reference for xlC v7, where short was (apparently) still accepted:
http://www.serc.iisc.ernet.in/facilities/ComputingFacilities/systems/cluster/vac-7.0/html/language/ref/clrc03defbitf.htm
I am taking this is from xlC v7 documentation from the URL, not
because I know it personally.
So - my question: if "short" is unacceptable for POWER, or maybe only
xlC (not tried with gcc) - how terrible is this, and is it possible to
adjust the test so - the test is accurate?
I am going to modify the test code so it is
struct BITS {
signed int A: 1, B:2, C:3, D:4, E: 5, F: 6, G: 7, H: 8, I: 9;
unsigned int M: 1, N: 2, O: 3, P: 4, Q: 5, R: 6, S: 7;
};
And see what happens - BUT - what does this have for impact on python
- assuming that "short" bitfields are not supported?
p.s. not submitting this a bug (now) as it may just be that "you"
consider it a bug in xlC to not support (signed) short bit fields.
p.p.s. Note: xlc, by default, considers bitfields to be unsigned. I
was trying to force them to signed with -qbitfields=signed - and I
still got messages. So, going back to defaults.
