[Python-Dev] Re: [Python-checkins] python/dist/src/Objects dictobject.c,2.127,2.128 floatobject.c,2.113,2.114 intobject.c,2.84,2.85 listobject.c,2.120,2.121 longobject.c,1.119,1.120 rangeobject.c,2.42,2.43 stringobject.c,2.169,2.170 tupleobject.c,2.69,2.70 typeobject.c,2.160,2.161 unicodeobject.c,2.155,2.156 xxobject.c,2.20,2.21

[Jeremy Hylton]

>>>>> "MAL" == mal  <M.-A.> writes:

  MAL> M.-A. Lemburg wrote:
  >>> I suggest that we keep Jeremy's checkins in 2.3.  Hopefully
  >>> during the alpha or beta release cycle we will find out if there
  >>> *really* are still platforms with broken compilers.  At worst,
  >>> it will show up after 2.3 final is released, and then we can fix
  >>> it in 2.3.1.  You won't have to target mx for 2.3 for another 18
  >>> months (assuming the PBF ever releases Python-in-a-Tie).
  >>
  >>
  >> It's easy enough for me to add the #defines to the support header
  >> file if you take it out of the distribution, so it wouldn't hurt.

  MAL> Just an addition: please leave the configure test in the
  MAL> distribution. While I could implement that using distutils as
  MAL> well, I would rather benefit from relying on config.h doing the
  MAL> right thing in case there are some newly broken compilers out
  MAL> there, e.g. the xlC one on AIX seems to be a very picky one...

I don't understand what your goal is.  Why do you want the configure
test if your header file has a bunch of platform-specific ifdefs?  If
these platforms actually had a problem, the configure test would have
caught it and you wouldn't need the ifdefs.  The only way the ifdefs
would have an effect is if the configure test did not detect a
problem; but if the configure test didn't detect a problem, then you
don't need the ifdefs.

Jeremy