| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
"%#x" % 0
blew up, at heart because C sprintf supplies a base marker if and only if
the value is not 0. I then fixed that, by tolerating C's inconsistency
when it does %#x, and taking away that *Python* produced 0x0 when
formatting 0L (the "long" flavor of 0) under %#x itself. But after talking
with Guido, we agreed it would be better to supply 0x for the short int
case too, despite that it's inconsistent with C, because C is inconsistent
with itself and with Python's hex(0) (plus, while "%#x" % 0 didn't work
before, "%#x" % 0L *did*, and returned "0x0"). Similarly for %#X conversion.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=415514&group_id=5470&atid=105470
For short ints, Python defers to the platform C library to figure out what
%#x should do. The code asserted that the platform C returned a string
beginning with "0x". However, that's not true when-- and only when --the
*value* being formatted is 0. Changed the code to live with C's inconsistency
here. In the meantime, the problem does not arise if you format a long 0 (0L)
instead. However, that's because the code *we* wrote to do %#x conversions on
longs produces a leading "0x" regardless of value. That's probably wrong too:
we should drop leading "0x", for consistency with C, when (& only when) formatting
0L. So I changed the long formatting code to do that too.
|
| |
|
|
| |
(This one was trivial -- no actual string. references in it!)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
'verify' iff it's used by a test module...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
and replaces them with a new API verify(). As a result the regression
suite will also perform its tests in optimization mode.
Written by Marc-Andre Lemburg. Copyright assigned to Guido van Rossum.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
(Oh, look, it adds another little utility function for testing)
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
%d,i,u,x,X,o formats.
Note a curious extension to the std C rules: x, X and o formatting can never produce
a sign character in C, so the '+' and ' ' flags are meaningless for them. But
unbounded ints *can* produce a sign character under these conversions (no fixed-
width bitstring is wide enough to hold all negative values in 2's-comp form). So
these flags become meaningful in Python when formatting a Python long which is too
big to fit in a C long. This required shuffling around existing code, which hacked
x and X conversions to death when both the '#' and '0' flags were specified: the
hacks weren't strong enough to deal with the simultaneous possibility of the ' ' or
'+' flags too, since signs were always meaningless before for x and X conversions.
Isomorphic shuffling was required in unicodeobject.c.
Also added dozens of non-trivial new unbounded-int test cases to test_format.py.
|
|
|
New test for huge formatting strings (these could cause core
dumps in previous versions).
By Trent Mick.
|
