[Cython] Fwd: MemoryView.is_f_contig sometimes not defined?

[mark florisson]

On 9 February 2013 07:03, David Hirschfeld <dave.hirschfeld at gmail.com> wrote:
> Reposting because I think my original got blocked because of
> attachments. Apologies if this appears twice.
>
> I want to allow arbitrary C/F contiguous arrays as input to a cdef
> class so I can dispatch to a different calculation method in each
> case, avoiding a potentially costly copy.
> Unfortunately, it appears that cython is generating incorrect code.
> The following minimal example reproduces the problem:
>
> cimport cython
>
> cdef class TestContig:
>
>     cdef cython.bint contig
>
>     def __init__(self, double[:,:] y):
>         if y.is_c_contig():
>             self.contig = 1
>         elif y.is_f_contig():
>             self.contig = 1
>         else:
>             self.contig = 0
>
>     property contig:
>         def __get__(self):
>             return self.contig
>
> #
>
>
> C:\temp> python setup.py build_ext --inplace
> running build_ext
> building 'example' extension
> C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe /c
> /nologo /Ox /MD /W3 /GS- /DNDEBUG -IC:\dev\bin\Python27\include
> -IC:\dev\bin\Python27\PC /Tpexample.cpp
> /Fobuild\temp.win32-2.7\Release\example.obj
> example.cpp
> example.cpp(1277) : error C3861: '__pyx_memviewslice_is_f_contig2':
> identifier not found
> error: command '"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio
> 11.0\VC\BIN\cl.exe"' failed with exit status 2
> C:\temp>
>
>
> I'm on Windows7 with 32bit Python2.7 and I tested that compilation
> fails with both VS2012 & MinGW32 4.6.1.
>
> NB: If you only check for f-contiguity (or c-contiguity) in the method it
> compiles fine, it appears that the bug only appears when you test for
> both f and c contiguity in the same method.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
> _______________________________________________
> cython-devel mailing list
> cython-devel at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel

Thanks, Cython seems to think (for some reason) that the second
function is the same as the first and omits the definition.