-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.6k
gh-92869: ctypes: Add c_time_t #92870
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
Conversation
Bump after 24 days of no activity. Any takers for reviewing this PR? |
@thp |
Is there a way to manually re-trigger it? I don't seem to have permissions. I can of course amend the commits and force-push to indirectly re-trigger a build? |
You can close and reopen the PR. |
There is another way to re-trigger. You can comment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Seems reasonable, please add tests though.
A
Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2022-05-17-06-27-39.gh-issue-92869.t8oBkw.rst
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Pinging listed names from the experts index for review. A |
…oBkw.rst Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>
Found that the ctypes documentation's "Calling functions" documentation does this (without setting
This uses the default return type of
Updated the documentation accordingly with setting The |
I think this is a better approach. (Thanks for noticing!) A |
Moved the |
Merged upstream Review/feedback/merge appreciated. |
Bump after 21 days of no feedback. I know this isn't high priority, but maybe someone can review/approve this. Or just any outlook like "I won't have time to look into this before after summer". If I should stop bumping this PR, please let me know - I hope the practice of waiting at least 20 days before nagging again is a good compromise between not being too annoying but still maybe getting it in front of the right people to review. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good from my perspective, but I'm not a ctypes specialist. I've asked if a core dev can review.
A
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
I also removed the 32 or 64 bit wording as that isn't really important. it abstracts that from the user to use the right size.
apologies about the commit message, i think i misattributed primary authorship in there by misreading github. Thanks for the PR! |
This implements a simple way of using
ctypes.c_time_t
for 32-bit and 64-bittime_t
sizes. See #92869 for a discussion on why this is useful and considerations for different platforms. This doesn't take into account platforms wheretime_t
is defined asdouble
or anything else that's not a signed integer.