[PATCHES] Build pytalloc for two Python versions at once, port to py3

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On 24 March 2015 9:38:29 am GMT+00:00, Petr Viktorin <pviktori at redhat.com> wrote:
>On 03/19/2015 06:43 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 04:07:24PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>> Is there anything I can do to make the build system and talloc
>patches
>>> better?
>>> Should I first complete porting the other stand-alone libraries, and
>present
>>> a giant set of patches then? In other words, is having talloc ported
>useless
>>> without the other stand-alone libraries being ported as well? I know
>the
>>> other libraries will have issues with unicode/bytes; pytalloc does
>not.
>>> I think a giant patchset would complicate things for reviewers as
>well as
>>> for me, but if you'd prefer it, I can go hack on it. Even then, if
>you have
>>> any comments on the changes at hand, I'd like to hear them so I
>don't have
>>> to rebase so much down the road.
>> I agree. I think a patchset just for talloc is fine.
>
>Thanks. It's good to be back on track.
>
>>> If the extra header is too much, I can move the macros into the c
>files.
>>> (I'd personally prefer not to do that, so that it's easier to re-use
>them
>>> consistently across all standalone libraries. But I can move them if
>you
>>> wish.)
>> My strong preference is for inlining the macros. If somebody else
>(Andrew?)
>> wants to review this patchset with the header I won't stand in the
>way,
>> since there seems to be disagreement about this point, but I won't
>review.
>>
>> I need to take a closer look at the waf changes, but other than that
>and
>> the py3compat.h file this patchset looks good to me.
>
>Here are the patches with inlined macros. I also included the pytalloc 
>tests, apply these directly on master.
Thanks! I'll try to get to these this week. 

Cheers,

Jelmer