Guido van Rossum wrote:
> OK, with sys.maxsize as the logical replacement, it can go. Make sure
> to fix everything that breaks before submitting though!
I've removed sys.maxint and replaced sys.maxint with sys.maxsize. Does
anybody see a problem with the Windows 64bit platform? AFAIK it's the
onl
On Dec 4, 2007 11:21 AM, Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Wouters wrote:
> > The removal of classic slices already added sys.maxsize, which is the max of
> > Py_ssize_t.
>
> Great. If I'm not mistaken the max of Py_ssize_t should be 2**31-1 on a
> 32bit system and 2**63-1 on a 6
The win64 buildbot testing stage hangs. The only thing that I can see
is (I have no time to investigate further) in processexplorer:
'python -E -tt ../lib/test/regrtest.py -uall -rw' has started this process
which hangs:
'cmd /c ""C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\vcvarsall.ba
Thomas Wouters wrote:
> The removal of classic slices already added sys.maxsize, which is the max of
> Py_ssize_t.
Great. If I'm not mistaken the max of Py_ssize_t should be 2**31-1 on a
32bit system and 2**63-1 on a 64bit system, even on Win x64 and IA-64.
Guido, it's your call. Should sys.maxin
On Dec 3, 2007 7:57 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2007 12:56 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It's only used for sys.maxint. Do we still need sys.maxint and
> > > PyInt_GetMax()? IMO PyLong_GetNativeMax() and sys.maxnativelong are
> > > better na
On Dec 4, 2007 7:55 AM, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/3/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 2007 12:12 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> Sure. However, you could also use
> > > >> _testcapi.PY_SSIZE_T_MAX, or
> > > >> ctypes.sizeof(c
On 12/3/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2007 12:12 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Sure. However, you could also use
> > >> _testcapi.PY_SSIZE_T_MAX, or
> > >> ctypes.sizeof(ctypes.py_object).
> > > Much less intuitive though.
> > Actually, I fi
