Issue852281
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2003-12-01 20:01 by tim.peters, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.
Messages (9) | |||
---|---|---|---|
msg19210 - (view) | Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * | Date: 2003-12-01 20:01 | |
Under current CVS, on Win98SE: C:\Code\python\PCbuild>python ../lib/test/test_winreg.p y Traceback (most recent call last): File "../lib/test/test_winreg.py", line 135, in ? TestAll(HKEY_CURRENT_USER) File "../lib/test/test_winreg.py", line 130, in TestAll WriteTestData(root_key) File "../lib/test/test_winreg.py", line 37, in WriteTestData SetValueEx(sub_key, value_name, 0, value_type, value_data) WindowsError: [Errno 87] The parameter is incorrect C:\Code\python\PCbuild> That's all I know now. |
|||
msg19211 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * | Date: 2003-12-01 20:14 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6380 I bet the Big String and/or Big Binary test values that I added to the test_data table are too long for Win98. I can only test this on Win98. Can you experiment and find out what the largest value is that works on Win98? (The alternative would be to write code that somehow tries to *detect* the longest string that works, using bisection. I don't know if these limits are documented somewhere.) |
|||
msg19212 - (view) | Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * | Date: 2003-12-01 20:28 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=31435 Yes, when I reduced the size of Big String to 12, it stopped failing there and failed on Big Binary instead. The docs don't promise that anything larger than 2048 will work ... "x"*(2**14-1) works, "x"*2**14 does not, for Big String. "x"*2**14 works, "x"*(2**14+1) does not, for Big Binary. So 2**14 bytes is the max on my Win98SE, when counting the trailing zero byte in REG_SZ. The limits are not documented (apart from the docs saying you shouldn't use any value exceeding 2**11 bytes). |
|||
msg19213 - (view) | Author: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter) | Date: 2003-12-02 00:23 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=29957 Argh. Is this busted on the 2.3 branch as well? |
|||
msg19214 - (view) | Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * | Date: 2003-12-02 00:34 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=31435 Anthony, yes, it is. |
|||
msg19215 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * | Date: 2003-12-03 15:16 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6380 Sigh. I'll adjust the test to use 2**14-1 and 2**14, respectively. But that no longer tests for the segfault I was experiencing before... :-( BTW, if I seem tardy responding to this, it's because I just discovered that SF doesn't send me email when this item changes (maybe it doesn't send me mail at all, I haven't seen any SF mail in ages I think). |
|||
msg19216 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * | Date: 2003-12-03 15:21 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6380 Sigh. Somehow my SF email forwarding was set to guido@zope.com. I've fixed it now... But who know how many other reminders of SF items I've missed... (I wonder if this was recently changed??? I sure remember getting at least some SF mail recently, and I definitely get SF mail from the IDLEfork tracker; I've only got one SF account.) |
|||
msg19217 - (view) | Author: Guido van Rossum (gvanrossum) * | Date: 2003-12-03 15:27 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=6380 Fixed in CVS, for 2.4 and 2.3. Let's hope this is it. (Tim, please confirm.) |
|||
msg19218 - (view) | Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * | Date: 2003-12-04 07:09 | |
Logged In: YES user_id=31435 Fix confirmed under 98SE on trunk and on 2.3 maint. Thanks! Closed the bug report. |
History | |||
---|---|---|---|
Date | User | Action | Args |
2022-04-11 14:56:01 | admin | set | github: 39642 |
2003-12-01 20:01:40 | tim.peters | create |