Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bpo-37616: Handle version info more gracefully in getpath.c #20214

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 19, 2020

Conversation

pablogsal
Copy link
Member

@pablogsal pablogsal commented May 19, 2020

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

From the C99 standard:

In translation phase 6, the multibyte character sequences specified by any sequence of adjacent character and identically-prefixed string literal tokens are concatenated into a single multibyte character sequence. If any of the tokens has an encoding prefix, the resulting multibyte character sequence is treated as having the same prefix; otherwise, it is treated as a character string literal. Whether differently-prefixed wide string literal tokens can be concatenated and, if so, the treatment of the resulting multibyte character sequence are implementation-defined.

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

@serhiy-storchaka Does it occur to you if there is a simpler way to produce this string at compile time?

Modules/getpath.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Modules/getpath.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Modules/getpath.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Modules/getpath.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Modules/getpath.c Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
pablogsal and others added 2 commits May 19, 2020 14:00
Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org>
Co-authored-by: Victor Stinner <vstinner@python.org>
Copy link
Member

@vstinner vstinner left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM.

If this change breaks IRIX support, we can reconsider IRIX support later ;-)

@pablogsal pablogsal added the 🔨 test-with-buildbots Test PR w/ buildbots; report in status section label May 19, 2020
@bedevere-bot
Copy link

🤖 New build scheduled with the buildbot fleet by @pablogsal for commit 4211927 🤖

If you want to schedule another build, you need to add the ":hammer: test-with-buildbots" label again.

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot removed the 🔨 test-with-buildbots Test PR w/ buildbots; report in status section label May 19, 2020
@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

Seems that the almost all buildbot workers are green and the ones that fail are because some other unrelated issues (no space left on device and some PGO/LTO failures elsewhere). So I am going ahead and merge this

@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

CC: @ambv

@pablogsal pablogsal merged commit 2a561b5 into python:master May 19, 2020
@pablogsal pablogsal deleted the bpo-37616 branch May 19, 2020 16:28
@pablogsal pablogsal added the needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes label May 19, 2020
@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @pablogsal for the PR 🌮🎉.. I'm working now to backport this PR to: 3.9.
🐍🍒⛏🤖

@miss-islington
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry, @pablogsal, I could not cleanly backport this to 3.9 due to a conflict.
Please backport using cherry_picker on command line.
cherry_picker 2a561b5f6830aee39cf05dc70c24e26c3558dda0 3.9

@vstinner
Copy link
Member

@pablogsal: I don't think that we need a backport to 3.9 which only uses a single digit for the minor version.

@vstinner vstinner removed the needs backport to 3.9 only security fixes label May 19, 2020
@pablogsal
Copy link
Member Author

@pablogsal: I don't think that we need a backport to 3.9 which only uses a single digit for the minor version.

Makes sense, I just wanted to extend the progress 😅

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants